text:
A Reprise of Last Year’s Synod

(As controversy rages outside the Synod, I thought it might be useful to reprint this article from after the close of last year’s session-CJ)

To Pope Francis: O Captain, My Captain!

francis and families

Some years ago my sister, Kim, was assistant manager of a large Farmer’s Co-Op in rural Alabama. I stopped by to see her at work one day. It was frantically busy and she was behind the counter, with a deep line of farmers waiting. One fellow kept trying to butt in. She kept telling him to wait his turn. The third time he irritably told her he was one of their biggest customers, she eyed him fiercely and told him she knew, but he would still have to wait his turn. He muttered then that he had been praying for more patience. I looked at him astounded and said, “When you pray for patience God does not magically give you more patience. He gives you opportunities to be patient. Quit complaining and thank God for answering your prayer.”

He looked at me in astonishment and said, “That’s right. I’m a preacher. I should know that.”

I look now at the close of the preliminary session of the Synod and think, how wonderful! God gave us an opportunity to trust Him.

A week ago, people were in deep turmoil, wondering if things were going to begin to go off the rails. Some opportunists used it as a means of trying to get people to leave the Church and follow them. Among the Bishops, several set themselves up as spokesmen playing to the press. One who took up the mantle of progressive, claimed to speak for the Pope, himself, in arguing that he had a better approach than the Gospels do. Another, a prominent icon of orthodoxy, acted as if the Church depended on him to keep from capsizing and presumed to lecture the Pope before Francis had said anything. Neither seemed to put much stock in Christ’s promise that even the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. When confronted with these storms and controversies, that is really what we are being asked, for the promise that the Church will prevail is not a promise of men, but of Christ. Do you trust Him or do you not?

That does not mean you never criticize. The tradition of fraternal dispute goes all the way back to Sts. Peter and Paul – but you would do well to remember that the same St. Paul who rebuked St. Peter also obeyed him and sought his direction in launching out on his voyages. The tradition of obedience goes that far back, as well.

I had said all along that I suspected Pope Francis was flushing people out. I was partly right and partly wrong. That is exactly what he was doing, but for more profound reasons than I imagined. He was not trying to flush anyone out so that he could knock their heads off. He was shrewder than that. He well knew that suppressing any particular point of view would not make it go away, just cause it to burrow deeper along with real resentment. So he got it all out now. He did, indeed, find who, among the leaders, has deceived themselves that Christ depended on them to get it right rather than that they depended on Christ. Then, in the remarks below, he corrected those errors firmly but charitably, so that all might contemplate with real depth in the year before the legislative session of the Synod convenes. Mark Mallett writes a penetratingly insightful article on that aspect of things today.

There were three things that struck me that might have been missed by some:

1) Cardinal George Pell, formerly of Sydney, Australia absolutely covered himself in glory at this Synod. My readers from Australia have been rightly jubilant over the rise of this steady, solid Bishop to the top levels of the Vatican. Well they should be. Cardinal Pell is entirely orthodox, as much as Pope Emeritus Benedict or Cardinal Burke. He acted with the serene confidence throughout that, of course, the doctrinal foundation of the faith would remain unmolested…and of course, there were pressing new challenges to be met in reconciling God’s people to His Church that must not be ignored. He visibly and clearly trusted Christ throughout, never panicking, getting strident, or playing to the press. This Cardinal is a formidable new presence at the top echelons of the hierarchy. Pope Francis chose well when he elevated him – and so the Church is gearing up well to be a sign of unity and stability as the Storm deepens.

2) The assembled Bishops reacted to Pope Francis remarks with four minutes of enthusiastic, sustained applause. That tell us where the Bishops are. Various factions spent the entire Synod trying to spin that the majority were with them, but when all was said and done, the overwhelming majority profoundly seconded Pope Francis’ fully orthodox, fully charitable and firm resolve to confront the challenges ahead in the spirit of St. John Paul: Be not afraid.

3) I was deeply heartened by the emergence of the African Bishops as a force to be reckoned with – and a firmly orthodox force. It is the continent in which the Church has seen the most vigorous and abundant new growth in the last few decades. It has come of age. It was interesting that their emergence came in reaction to one who claimed to speak for the marginalized seeking to marginalize them when they vigorously disagreed with his position. There is a pointed lesson in this for all who appoint themselves to speak for another. But also, I wrote the other day about the battle ahead over the next three years. The emergence of a confident, sophisticated African Christian voice suggests to me that there will be an authentic African culture that is fully Christian weighing in in the great battle ahead. It will be a critical part of helping all of us endure the Storm.

Before getting to Pope Francis’ magnificent closing remarks, a word of warning to those who are getting too enthused about discerning the “remnant Church” from the “false Church.” This formulation is being used by those who, with complicated arguments and sophistical theology are trying to pull people away from the safety of the ancient faith. There is no great discernment needed here – and if you are getting caught up in it, you are probably in the process of deceiving yourself. Christ said the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church He founded. Very simply, where Peter is, there is the Church. To those who are trying to undermine that faith, who claim to have a better variety of the Gospel, a better assurance than what Christ gave, I paraphrase Christ, Himself: Woe to you who, out of pride, would pull people away from the safety of the Barque of Peter. It would be better if you had a millstone tied around your neck and drowned in the sea than for you to continue to deceive the Lord’s little ones.

And now, the magnificent closing remarks of our great captain as we embark on this perilous journey, Pope Francis I:

Dear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters,

With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultors, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been “a journey” – and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of fatigue, as if wanting to say “enough”; other moments of enthusiasm and ardour. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

 – One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

 – The temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness [it. buonismo], that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the “do-gooders,” of the fearful, and also of the so-called “progressives and liberals.”

 – The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).

 – The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfil the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.

 – The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei” [the deposit of faith], not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard – with joy and appreciation – speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the “supreme law,” the “good of souls” (cf. Can. 1752). And this always – we have said it here, in the Hall – without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Cann. 1055, 1056; and Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn’t see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

The is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church – the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of  their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock – to nourish the flock – that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome – with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears – the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said welcome: [rather] to go out and find them.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: “The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God’s People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, ‘to see to it… that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity’ and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6)… and it is through us,” Pope Benedict continues, “that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: ‘let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord’ (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1).”

So, the Church is Christ’s – she is His bride – and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the “servant of the servants of God”; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being – by the will of Christ Himself – the “supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful” (Can. 749) and despite enjoying “supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church” (cf. Cann. 331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

One year to work on the “Synodal Relatio” which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as “lineamenta” [guidelines].

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

About charliej373

Charlie Johnston is a former newspaper editor, radio talk show host and political consultant. From Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012, he walked 3,200 miles across the country, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. He has received prophetic visitation all his life, which he has vetted through a trio of priests over the last 20 years, and now speaks publicly about on this site. Yet he emphasizes that we find God most surely through the ordinary, doing the little things we should with faith and fidelity. Hence the name, The Next Right Step. The visitations inform his work, but are not the focus of it. He lives in the Archdiocese of Denver in the United States.
This entry was posted in Church Governance, Family, The Storm. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to A Reprise of Last Year’s Synod

  1. Helen Montana says:

    Wonderful post – and so important to read a year later. You are blessed beyond belief to belong so tightly to St Peters and Father Sabo – a true “remnant church.” I find that label “remnant church” very interesting because many years ago, before He called me back to the Catholic Church, I picked up a book called “The Remnant Church” and loved it – even though I was plugged into a protestant church at the time and had zero intention of ever leaving it. I guess He knew better and was preparing me even though I never connected the dots on that book until just now. It’s amazing how He does things! He can work the plan over a lifetime or in a second – or a combination of both. All these little things just reinforce how magnificent He is and you can’t help but increase Trust. Time is drawing near for the full effect of the storm to hit. We have to thank Him for everything – every blessing, every attack, every joy, every heartache – because we trust Him in all things.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Pam Nicholson says:

    Yes, he is our captain and he is doing his best, as God helps him in the present needs of the church, to guide, instruct, and follow all that God continues to give to His Church. He knows his place as captain but he knows Who his commander is. It is best we watch and learn from him who knows his job is service. He is a treasure for our church but one that will stand next to Christ for our good and the good of all God’s church! Let us all continue to watch and pray for our beloved pope. pam, from NJ.

  3. Deereverywhere says:

    Twenty years ago I read “AA-1025 Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle” which details infiltration of how the smoke of satan enters the church. The show “the Americans” about Russian spies infiltrating American life reminded me of that book, too. I have often wondered if the pedophile criminals were actually satan’s smoke sent to infiltrate and destroy. To be perfectly honest I cannot make heads nor tails of the synod so I have no qualms about trusting that the gates of hell shall not prevail. I have tried to understand what is going on and find that my eyes cross and I get a headache, I am only able to pull my little red wagon. What goes on at the synod is in God’s hands. So I read St. Therese and be a trusting child. Speaking of children, apparently there are plenty of cardinals acting like spoiled brats, and as such are duly noted for their lack of faith, hope and love, which is your point, Charlie. It is about trust, trusting that God knows what He is doing. The one thing that I know about trust is that it is much easier and much more heartening to trust in the sunshine than it is at three o’clock in the morning with the thick heavy darkness pressing in from all sides. Praise Him at all times! He has already won!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Pam Nicholson says:

      Oooh! I love this guy! I don’t know who you are, but, you say it because it is true! Love trust and obedience to God, that is where Jesus is and His Mother! Many, many blessings for saying the truth and knowing it as it has come to you by the Holy Spirit! Pray to Him for guidance daily, and get others to do the same! Again, many blessings and pass on the truth as you just have! pam, from NJ.

  4. Thank you. If you missed Michael Voris video on Church Militant today it is worth the view.

    In spite of usually good material he seems way of mark here on papacy

    God bless

  5. Kris says:

    Dear Charlie, It struck me this last week that Pope Francis is doing exactly what Christ would have done with his first twelve, even when they failed to understand, he gently, sometimes with exasperation, called them to be better, all to help them be able to carry on with the mission he had given to them. It struck me that Pope Francis was waiting to let everyone openly, with hope that what their intervention would be ‘picked’, express their ideas, and then contextualize them in the frame of the temptation that each was dealing with, He did this so beautifully. I also read them as a challenge to my own temptations , my fears, my weaknesses. How did I do during this time of testing? What a wonderful job Pope Francis did and will continue to do I suspect. Thank God for his ongoing protection of the Church that he founded 2000 years ago! It give me courage to ‘man up’ and go forth……with my head resting on Christ’s shoulder for I know I have no power to do anything otherwise. Jesus Mercy on us all.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Becky-TN says:

    Love this!

  7. Simone says:

    LOVE HIM!!!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Jennifer Mary says:

    I love and pray for Cardinal George Pell. He grew up and then ministered in my city Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. He has had much suffering. Charlie your piece on him was heartening.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anne says:

      Oh Jennifer. From Ballarat!………. My grandparents from Ireland went there before coming West. Years and years ago……… My mum who died in 2012 was youngest of 9.
      I did not know Pell was in Ballarat for awhile.
      Sorry Charlie……. I do not about Cubs etc……but this is a quick Aussie aside …… It’s our turn…. Ha, ha Americans!
      Humour helps along the way, so do not misconstrue and.take offence.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Anne says:

    A thought this morning……. Pope Francis is calling all from top down into unity and that will mean all dying to self…… From top down ….. Dying to self and being obedient.
    Unity before main storm.

    Liked by 1 person

    • NancyA says:

      Very on point, Anne, except that Pope Francis called it an inverted pyramid, with the Servant of the servants of God on the bottom . ..so, from the bottom, up, but exactly as you mean.

  10. I loved this Pope instantly. Am I wrong in thinking that folks will rediscover humble, refreshing SIMPLICITY in the Church after the storm? (Charlie, that’s a rhetorical question of course, since you know I’ve never once asked you a ‘storm’ or ‘post-storm’ question.)

    I think most of us recognize that Pope Francis is leading the way, but it’s no surprise that whenever he comes up in topic all the characters we see in the Gospel are suddenly on the scene again. All of them. Oh, how many of them in the world with little more than the heavy weight of their talking, distractions, arguments and worse.

    How did this ever get to be so complicated? Sorry, I’m just yearning for simplicity in our Faith, and I suppose this is just an elongated sigh that I ended up articulating before hitting the hay.

    Thank God for all the little ones here.

    God Bless,

    Liked by 3 people

    • charliej373 says:

      It is striking that the people who are loudest and most sure of their opinions usually have the least actual knowledge. I am continually astonished at the fractured eschatology of those who seem only to learn enough to shout. But this, too, shall pass.

      Liked by 1 person

      • YongDuk says:

        Yup. These are the two comments that I like.

        Sadly, the [Final Apostasy (unsure of the right word)] will likely stem from exactly this sort of thing after the Rescue: Christians will live as one, but then the seed of pride will grow again, as opposed to being humble and recognizing what St Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite expounds upon in his writings: The Hierarchies are there to serve the upper to those below!

        Would that we would truly be docile, truly listen and be secure in our positions serving ad being served, and (N.B.I say this to myself as I try to curb my tongue in wanting to say more on not over-esteeming ourselves in the context of a page or so ago) thus stay secure in a proper Ecclesiology (and Eschatology, I supposed too, Charlie 😉 — I still get a laugh about St. Catherine of Siena’s body being below the high alter in one of my favourite churches and her poor head just being miles away… Hopefully, they put St Agnes’ head back out prominently).

        • Doug says:

          Young Duck? You have got a good sense of humor 🙂

          • YongDuk says:

            Charlie this is for you too:

            Thanks, Doug! I almost thought I wore out my welcome… I gotta repost to Beckita now 😀

            Forgive me, and this is to Charlie too, I started posting here over LttW and warning my mom. Doug, I saw that you you were in preparation for the Deaconate. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I keep making ejaculations of excitement that are focused on pastoral intent from all sides and yet just the lay side is focused on. (I feel sad as I studied English in the context of long-winded theologians like Van Balthasar since my German is horrendously awful and I think I ramble[?]. Carlos and me suffer together–or Carlos suffers more from me!)

          • Doug says:

            YD, I enjoy reading your posts. I welcome you here! Well, I have expressed my desire to be a deacon and I have all my information and bio ready to submit my application for this fall for next year’s formation class, but my local diocese decided to hold off on the application process for another year. So I have to wait another year to apply. One of my prime motivators is to help ensure proper Catholic teaching as per the Magisterium of the church. I want to be faithful to the Magisterium and pastoral as well. So I am not in formation quite yet although I have made my desires known. I was disappointed that applications are not being accepted this year, but I understand. The diocese is looking at restructuring the local program to adjust for less priests and use deacons more in parish administrator roles. I am still hopeful and patiently waiting. It will all happen in God’s time.

            Liked by 2 people

          • jlynnbyrd says:

            Doug, you are being prayed for in your mission and calling. I do believe that things happen for a reason. Perhaps your time in the following year will be more useful focused on other matters. Love and peace to your and your bride.

          • Doug says:

            You are so kind Jylnn. Blessings from Medjugorje!

            Liked by 1 person

          • Pam Nicholson says:

            Future deacon, do you realize that in April 2016 begins the anniversary of the year of Fatima? What an awesome time God will have chosen if you are accepted next year. We will all pray for your application and your formation. You maybe just need this time to increase your formation. But, we leave it to God, as you say, as it is best not to tread to hard on His turf. Blessings to you and the group. pam, from NJ.

          • Doug says:

            Thank you Pam. Blessings from Medjugorje.

        • Petra says:

          Doug: Aren’t you in Medjugore right now? How cool is that? (being able to post from where ever you’re at!)
          Well, if I were you, I’d be bringing this obstacle to the Diaconate right to Our Lady’s feet while I was there, and walking up cross mountain barefoot (in spite of the cold! And stones!) as a sign of my sincere desire and for her intercession. But maybe you already thought of this, or something equally special.
          God bless your pilgrimage, and those who meet you and Jacki there. Praying for you.

          • Doug says:

            Hi Petra, smart phones and WI fi are wonderful things. We are a group of 22 pilgrims from NH and some from Maine. Medjugorje has a special place in my heart since the Blessed Mother brought me into the Catholic faith through a personal miracle in 1987. This is my 3rd time here and I feel my calling here this time is to help others with there pilgrimage. I came from a non church to a protestant background to the Catholic Faith. The first thing that struck me about her messages was it was all about coming to her son and doing what he says. This goes right back to the wedding feast of Cana.

      • Doug says:

        Charlie, that is at the heart of lberalism.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Kim in Ohio says:

      I agree. Our good Lord will make it simple again some day soon.

  11. Maeb says:

    Aside from the WAPO piece today, this is the best insider news about Pope Francis so far. link removed-CJ

    • charliej373 says:

      Mary Ann, I am kind of disappointed. There was no news at the link you provided at all, just an opinion, positing that the Pope can only be either a fool or an heretic. I can think of three very reasonable alternative theories off-hand. I suspect the author knew that, which is why he kept repeating there can only be two choices – he, too, knew how pathetically weak his false choice was. I have come to expect that sort of malicious sophistry from the source you cited, which is why I had banned it from this site. But your arguments are usually clear and sophisticated.

  12. Doug says:

    This is a Good pope. Thanks Charlie.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Truncated: length

WARC-Type: response

text:
Tickled Pink about The Tar Pit in Tinseltown

So, yesterday I’m working on putting together my up-and-coming Master Mixology product section for my 9-5 job (barproducts.com, barsupply.com, barsupplies.com, etc.) when I reach a point that I should ask for some expert advice. Luckily, I have a few people in the industry always willing to make time for me in their busy schedules. My main four cocktail colleagues that I can count on are Robert Hess, Dale DeGroff, Gary Regan, and Tobin Ellis. Knowing Tobin and Dale are busy and not needing a historical story from Gary, I text my long time Internet cocktail friend, Robert Hess. He immediately texts back and says he’s in a meeting, but can help me within an hour and half before he flys down to Los Angeles. I heart Robert.

2009_09_tarpit-thumbSo, I ask Robert why he’s going to Los Angeles and he tells me there’s a soft pre-press party for Audrey Saunders’ new bar adventure. A Pegu Club in LA I ask? Robert says, no, a new bar called The Tar Pit. I ask about the chosen name of Audrey’s new bar and Robert explained that it was a fun name taken from the tar pit area of Los Angeles where it’s located. The word “fun” perked up my ears. I thought I heard Robert incorrectly. Fun? Fun and master mixologist NYC craft-bar-mixtress and owner Audrey Saunders? That’s awesome!  Honestly, I can’t remember the exact words Robert said after this point, but it was something about how Audrey was currently tired of all the seriousness that has been going on in the craft & speakeasy types bars in the past several years and wanted to get back to the fun side of the cocktail. Wow! I love it! I’m tickled pink.

5848_133808594552_682519552_2960578_6461870_n1I had this very same conversation with Chad Solomon and Christy Pope (Milk & Honey and Cuff & Buttons) at Tales of the Cocktail 2009 in New Orleans. The first time was after they tended bar in the Laird’s Applejack tasting room (photo to the left) and then again at The Old Absinthe House. I can’t remember if it was Chad or Christy, but one of them looked at me and said they were tired of being so serious and stuffy and wanted to do some fun things like me. I remember slapping my hand to my chest feeling honored. For the first time, one of the world’s top cocktilians told me they liked the fun cocktail side of me. Chad and Christy are the mixologists helping Audrey open The Tar Pit. That’s awesome!

The Tar Pit doesn’t open until mid December. Below is all the information I could find on it. I’ll add more in the coming weeks to round out 2009.

• Partners are Audrey Saunders (Pegu Club), Mark Peel (Top Chef Masters), and Jay Perrin (Campanile).
• Bar trainers are Chad Solomon & Christy Pope (Milk & Honey and Cuff & Buttons). Head bartender is Marcos Tello (from The Edison. Marcos and I did the Tales 2009 seminar, Hollywood Cocktails together with Ted Haigh, Simon Ford and Charlotte Voisey).
• Decor is 40s Hollywood supper club style with some neo-tropical drinks mixed with some Old Hollywood swellagance. Definetely not a pit!
• The bar will use 3 types of ice and even have an ice room. A Kold-Draft double-stacked ice machine that makes 1 1/4-inch ice cubes, and a Scotsman ice machine that makes pebble ice. The kitchen will also have a reverse osmosis system, just for the ice. Block ice will be used as well.
• Cocktail flights, food and drink pairings, in-house carbonation program for housemade sodas, 1/3 of the cocktail menu will be rum based.   The cocktail glasses picked out by Saunders include a tiki god with a gun-metal glaze, a frosted glass with a sexy, Barbara Eden-esque genie on one side and a keyhole design on the other that affords a view of the genie’s unclothed bottom, and some ’70s smiley-face mugs for lemonade called “Have a Nice Day Lemonade.” Can’t wait to see the glassware!
• Food will be gueridon service (think fancy room service cart). This is the way I wanted to serve absinthe table-side at a restaurant I opened but was shot down.
• Sunday brunch will last all day with live music. This idea stems from hospitality people having a chance to have brunch. Love it.

I guess if I wasn’t so busy the past two weeks I would’ve known about The Tar Pit before talking to Robert because Simon Ford sent out an email and a facebook post about LA’s cocktail culture from Liquor.com. Just click on the image below to read it. I hope to visit The Tar Pit one day as well as all of these bars, especially since LA has a special place in my heart of being my birth city. Happy Holidays everyone!

Oh, one more thing. I will be putting the Meehan bag in my new Master Mixology section soon!
Look at this awesome bartender bag. Inspired by Jim Meehan.

It would make a great holiday present! And the price I’ll put on it will beat everyone else.

Leave a comment

Filed under Bar Fun, Bartenders

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Join Us Next Christmas

We are now offering the opportunity for you to book Christmas 2016!

This includes the opportunity to bring along family members who are non-skiers for a reduced rate. (Please contact our office for more information)

Whether you are a single skier, a shredding couple or a large family of riders, Christmas is an enchanting time at Chatter Creek.

Picture yourself surrounded by mountains as the helicopter flies away. The front door of the lodge opens wide and out spills the warmth and welcome of a Chatter Christmas.

Far from the hurry of the city, Vertebrae and Solitude lodges are nestled in a tranquil world of deep, fresh, untracked powder, and are the ultimate setting to unwind and enjoy having someone else take care of you and your family.

For those of you with families, or those looking for one, visit our availability page or call us for more information.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


text:
For Sale: 1979 Lincoln Mark V in Lansing, Michigan

Vehicle Description

Price reduced for quick sale. One Owner. Very clean interior that looks like new. Vehicle has been mostly stored for the last 30 years. Vinyl top was painted when it started to weather and does have some cracks. The passenger-side power door lock, power trunk release and gas gauge are not functioning properly. New battery.

Vehicle Details

  • Listing ID:CC-553697
  • Year:1979
  • Make:Lincoln
  • Model:Mark V
  • Exterior Color:Unspecified
  • Interior Color:Black, Red
  • Transmission:Automatic
  • Odometer:55470
  • Air Conditioning:Yes
  • AM/FM Radio:Yes
  • 8-Track:Yes
  • Cruise Control:Yes
  • Power Brakes:Yes
  • Power Steering:Yes
  • Power Locks:Yes
  • Power Windows:Yes
  • Tilt Wheel:Yes


text:
The 1930s are getting Colder

According to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC),, covered here, a new Beta version of the U.S. Historical Climatology Network will be released next year. They say that the new data set uses

“recent scientific advances that better address uncertainties in the instrumental record. Because different algorithms were used in making adjustments to the station data which comprise both data sets, there are small differences in annual average temperatures between the two data sets. These small differences in average temperatures result in minor changes in annual rankings for some years”.

One of these “minor changes” reverses the order of 1934 and 1999, with the relative change amounting to 0.45 deg F. And, in fact, the new changes are on top of some other puzzling changes which had already moved 1999 well up the league table.

Here’s the top part of the table comparing the top series in the two versions:

USHCN V1 USHCN Version 2 undergoing
beta testing
1. 2006 55.01 1998 55.09
2. 1998 54.94 2006 54.95
3. 1934 54.91 1999 54.61
4. 1999 54.53 1934 54.54
5. 1921 54.49 1921 54.37
6. 1931 54.34 1990 54.37
7. 1990 54.24 2001 54.35
8. 2001 54.23 2005 54.28
9. 1953 54.18 1931 54.20
10. 1954 54.13 1953 54.10

Contemporary Reporting

But even the USHCN V1 data shown here has already been adjusted substantially from contemporary reports. First here is a report from August 1999 on the 1998 annual results. Hansen stated:

The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.

Here is a graphic from the news release – I’ve been unable to locate a digital version of this dataset. In this image, the 1934 temperature is almost half a degree C (C not F) warmer than 1998, which was not even in second place.
From Hansen 1999 News Release.

Next, a contemporary account of 1999 said that it was the approximately the 10th warmest year:

The temperature in the United States was also warm, about 0.7°C above the 1951-1980 average (Figure 3). 1999 was approximately the 10th warmest year of the century. The warmest years in the United States occurred during the dust bowl era, with 1934 being the warmest year.

However, in the table shown above, 1999 had moved into 3rd place (in the 20th century standings) in USHCN V1 and then continued its retrospective advance up the league table by vaulting into 2nd place in USHCN V2 Beta. And to think that only 7 years, it ranked in 10th place.

  1. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

    Seems they are discrediting the Dust Bowl years. What a big mistake. They were far worse than anything during the 90s and early 00s. When we actually do see another situation like the 1930s again, it will be nasty, people won’t expect it. This is the danger of finagling data to make the period 1990 – present appear warmer than actual, it belittles past periods which were in fact warmer, and makes people complacent. The ethical considerations are interesting.

  2. jae
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 5:57 PM | Permalink

    Maybe this is up-and-up, but I have become so cynical of climate science that I can’t help thinking that it looks just like selecting the proper proxies to make the MWP and LIA “go away.”

  3. K
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    #1 I don’t grasp your reasoning on this one.

    How will this make people complacent? The GW people are constantly saying things are worse now and are going to be worser. That hardly seems likely to make people complacent.

    A little eyeballing makes me sure the new curve will produce a smooter rise and thus match CO2 levels better. It will also make the post-WW2 cooling ;ook less prominent. Who would have guessed?

    The cliche ‘the future remains the same, only the past changes’ comes to mind.

  4. Follow the Money
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    All the 1990’s/2000’s dates are tweaked up, all the earlier dates tweaked down.

    Imagine that!

    All except 2006, tweaked down a smidge .06, perhaps to make 1998’s ascendance more digestible.

  5. Follow the Money
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    “it looks just like selecting the proper proxies to make the MWP and LIA “go away.””

    Manufacturing “concensus,” that the 90’s/00’s were the “hottest” ever, creating the appearance of “crisis” that a “tipping point” is near, which can be averted by present legislation in America enacting carbon trad…ok, no politics on science threads. 😉

  6. K
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    #1. I don’t grasp your meaning. How will this make people more complacent?

    People are being told that today is worse than before. And that it will soon be worser. It seems to me that must reduce complacency.

    When I went to the article and looked at the revisions it seems that the overall pattern is to downplay the years before WW2, increase recent years, and reduce the effect of the post WW2 cooling. The net effect is a curve which rises more smoothly. And it will, no doubt, more closely agree with the rise of CO2.

    Who would have guessed?

    1954 really gets hit. It moved down about 7 notches among the 25 warmest years. Oddly enough, its warm companion, 1953, stayed in place.

    The cliche ‘the future remains the same, only the past changes’ comes to mind. It often does on this topic.

  7. Jeff Weffer
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

    In the US at least, 1934, 1931, 1921 and 1953 were at one time all higher than the record year of 1998.

    I just don’t understand how they can continually get away with rewriting history like this. There really should be an science ethics committee that can stop this from happening.

    If they get away with it again, every new year will become a new record.

  8. HFL
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

    Worrisome, but no surprise. Balling and Idso published a paper in GRL in 2002 (DOI 10.1029/2002GL014825) entitled “Analysis of adjustments to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database.” The abstract states:

    “The United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) temperature database is commonly used in regional climate analyses. However, the raw temperature records in the USHCN are adjusted substantially to account for a variety of potential contaminants to the dataset. We compare the USHCN data with several surface and upper-air datasets and show that the effects of the various USHCN adjustments produce a significantly more positive, and likely spurious, trend in the USHCN data.”

    They found that the trends in the unadjusted temperature records are not different from the trends observed using the satellite-based lower-tropospheric temperature record or from the trend of the balloon-based near-surface measurements. They go on to conclude that given that no substantial time of observation bias is contained in either the satellite-based or balloon-based measurements, and given that the time of observation bias is the dominant adjustment in the USHCN database, the present set of adjustments spuriously increase the long-term trend.

    The issue of exactly how station data adjustments are made has been a concern to many climatologists for decades and, I suspect, likely to continue being a concern.

  9. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    RE: #3 – Because very few alive today can actually remember the 30s. If you lock into people’s minds that the 90s are “the warmest ever” then they’ll beleive the Dust Bowl years were better than the 90s. So what has happened is, people’s expectations have actually and ironically been made more soft by this sort of language. Not if but when we get hit with another 1930s. people will be taken by surprise because in their minds, years like 1998, 2003 and 2006 were supposedly worse than the Dust Bowl years.

  10. David Smith
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 9:12 PM | Permalink

    Recall this paragraph from Brohan et al , page 6:

    “For some stations both the adjusted and unadjusted time-series are archived at CRU and so the adjustments that have been made are known… but for most stations only a single series is archived, so any adjustments that might have been made are unknown.”

    In other words, Hadley reported that they lost track of what data received (homogenisation) adjustments. That has the same effect as misplacing the original data, such that no one can go back and reconstruct what the actual historical temperatures were.

    I hope the NCDC doesn’t have the same uh-oh with the original US temperature records.

  11. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    #10. It makes me ill to read stuff like that. That’s probably why Jones won’t release his data; he’s lost too much original data and is embarrassed to have this in the sunshine. Hey, they’re the Team. Why should anyone expect them not to lose part of their data.

  12. David Smith
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 9:42 PM | Permalink

    RE #10 There is an interesting aspect to the discussion of homogenisation adjustments in Brohan (pages 6 to 8). The paper states that the most common reason for an adjustment was a station relocation from a (typically warmer) city to a (typically cooler) rural airport. The chart indicates that adjustments on the order of 0.5C were common, and were generally adjustments which lowered (cooled) the older temperature data.

    Yet, later on, Brohan seem to have some skepticism about UHI effects and seem to suggest a only small impact (0.05C/century) on the long-term trend.

    Which is it?

  13. John A
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    What happened in the unseen labyrinth to which the pneumatic tubes led, he did not know in detail, but he did know in general terms. As soon as all the corrections which happened to be necessary in any particular number of The Times had been assembled and collated, that number would be reprinted, the original copy destroyed, and the corrected copy placed on the files in its stead.

    This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs — to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.

    Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct, nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.

    In no case would it have been possible, once the deed was done, to prove that any falsification had taken place. The largest section of the Records Department, far larger than the one on which Winston worked, consisted simply of persons whose duty it was to track down and collect all copies of books, newspapers, and other documents which had been superseded and were due for destruction. A number of The Times which might, because of changes in political alignment, or mistaken prophecies uttered by Big Brother, have been rewritten a dozen times still stood on the files bearing its original date, and no other copy existed to contradict it. Books, also, were recalled and rewritten again and again, and were invariably reissued without any admission that any alteration had been made.

    Even the written instructions which Winston received, and which he invariably got rid of as soon as he had dealt with them, never stated or implied that an act of forgery was to be committed: always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.

    George Orwell, “1984”

  14. tom
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

    You mean to tell me that Hadley CRU does not have the origninal temp data? That they only have data that has been tweaked and
    don’t have the origninal? Man, this is just sickening. Yet we’re ready to pass legislation. Oh boy…

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 10:26 PM | Permalink

    always the reference was to slips, errors, misprints, or misquotations which it was necessary to put right in the interests of accuracy.

    Nice find, John A. There’s always a “good” reason why past temperatures have to be reduced, isn’t there?

  16. K
    Posted Feb 15, 2007 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    #9: thanks. I’m sorry for the (near) duplicate posts #3 & 6. I sent #3 and went to visit my daughter. Upon return #3 hadn’t posted yet and I wrote #6. (I think that is what happens when you ARE old enough to remember the dust bowl.)

    Anyway, I remember seeing my father occupied for a few minutes outside. And when he stepped away. You could see where he stood outlined on the sidewalk.

    You write: ‘Not if but when we get hit with another 1930s. people will be taken by surprise because in their minds, years like 1998, 2003 and 2006 were supposedly worse than the Dust Bowl years.’

    Actually a replication of the dust bowl would be hailed as strong evidence of GW. Heat, no rain, wind. The entire Great Plains is subject to such anyway – the first farming disasters there came before 1900. The huge aquifers and dams have masked the natural effects for sixty years. But the aquifers are being exhausted and the dams are dependent on snowfall in the Rockies.

    Enough of that.

    This adjustment business seems very serious. When algorithms are used to generate mass changes the original data may not be recoverable by simply knowing the algorithm and the output. It depends upon the procedure.

    Loss is even more likely when one data set ‘A’ is relied upon in calculating adjustments to another ‘B’. Data A may itself have been adjusted, or equally bad, it may be adjusted later.

  17. fFreddy
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 3:09 AM | Permalink

    Re #16, K

    And when he stepped away. You could see where he stood outlined on the sidewalk.

    Sorry, I don’t understand that. What was the outline ?

  18. John A
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 3:35 AM | Permalink

    Re #15, Steve

    History is being rewritten in order that the dominant scientific hypothesis (and attendant political cause) is not imperilled by reference to facts.

    I’m just shocked that no-one appears to object.

  19. Jeff Norman
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 6:28 AM | Permalink

    Re complacency.

    When you tell people over and over that the current climate is bad and getting worse because it is warming, how do you suppose people will respond when it starts getting cooler. I imagine that they will be relieved. And how do you suppose that people will respond when the doomsayers start decrying the cooling. I imagine that people will respond like the villagers in the boy who cried wolf.

  20. John Lang
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:12 AM | Permalink

    Jeff Norman #19 … how do you suppose people will respond when it starts getting cooler?

    But they won’t know it is actually colder because USHCN, GISS and the Hadley Centre will just keep rewriting history and will be continually telling them all the time “last month was the hottest on record.”

    That is the point of this thread. We will never know it is actually colder until a new independent data record organization is established.

  21. Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:22 AM | Permalink

    General question: Why HadCRUT starts from 1850? Why not use all the data instrumental data (before 1850 there must be some data)? Maybe sparse set, but uncertainty levels can be increased accordingly..

    More detailed one: (#10,#11)

    Brohan et al, on UHI

    No such complete meta-data are available, so in this analysis the same value for urbanisation uncertainty is used as in the previous analysis [Folland et al., 2001]; that is, a 1 \sigma value of 0.0055 C/decade, starting in 1900.

    So, need to read Folland et al (my bolds)

    The urbanization uncertainty could be regarded as one sided: stations cannot be “too rural” but may inadvertently be “too urban” (Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). However, because some cold biases are also possible in adjusted semi-urban data, we conservatively model this uncertainty as symmetrical about the optimum average. We assume that the global average LAT uncertainty (2\sigma ) owing to urbanization linearly increases from zero in 1900 to 0.1°C in 1990 (Jones et al, 1990), a value we extrapolate to 0.12°C in 2000 (Figure 1a). We have not accounted for other changes in land use as their effects have not been assessed.

    So, need to read Jones 1990

    It is unlikely that the remaining unsampled areas of the developing countries in tropical climates, or other highly populated parts of Europe, could significantly increase the overall urban bias above 0.05 C during the twentieth century.

    1) However, because some cold biases are also possible in adjusted semi-urban data, we conservatively model this uncertainty as symmetrical about the optimum average. ???

    2) We have not accounted for other changes in land use as their effects have not been assessed. ???

    I don’t understand how this correction is made, is there UHI correction applied, or is just put to uncertainties? If there is UHI correction, is it applied to global mean, or locally?

    BTW, Jones 1990

    .. many of the extreme urban biases that have been quoted are the largest daily occurrences, perhaps happening during still evenings or intense inversions. The effect on station monthly mean temperatures is sure to be considerably smaller.

    Monthly mean: from daily mid-ranges, or hourly-sampled average?

  22. MarkW
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:32 AM | Permalink

    I remember that just when Congress was getting ready to debate the bill banning CFC’s, NASA “suddenly” discovered new data
    that showed that a huge ozone hole had formed over the Arctic, and was drifting over the US. A year or so later, after the CFC
    ban was safely in place, NASA re-examined the data, and “discovered”, that they had made a few mistakes in calculating the data,
    and that there never was an Arctic ozone hole. So Sorry.

    Why do I get the feeling that the politicians a ginning up the data, once again?

  23. JerryB
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

    Digital versions of GISS USA temperatures, as of the indicated dates: 6-17-2000 3-11-2001 9-08-2004 6-27-2006 2-16-2007

    Meanwhile, their referring to the current version of USHCN as
    version 1 is odd, since the earlier version at
    would better deserve that label.

    The current version at
    has some similar adjustments, and some rather different adjustments
    than the earlier version, which George Taylor has stressed.

    Let me add that in both of those versions, the adjustments are clearly
    distinguished from the unadjusted data, but the number of changes of
    adjustments is large, and unsettling. A quick glance at the USHCN
    station history file indicates that the approximately 1220 USHCN
    “stations” resided at about 7,000 locations over the periods of record.
    In addition to differences of locations, other differences complicate
    any attempts to calculate suitable adjustments.

  24. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:37 AM | Permalink

    It is frightening to realize that we may no longer be able to find the original data. We now have a series of adjustments to adjustments to adjustments. Since the adjustments have been adjusted, the process of trying to retrieve the original data set from what currently exists is akin to decrypting a very complex code.

    If a bank did these sorts of adjustments to your check book balances because they felt that they needed to correct your past spending patterns, you would be outraged. What would the reaction be if the bank then said that they were sorry but due to a server crash, they had lost all the original check and deposit images; but don’t worry they would correct the adjusted balances by further tweaking?

  25. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    #21. I asked Jones in the past for the data used in Jones 1990. He said that it was on a diskette somewhere and it would be too hard to track down.

  26. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:49 AM | Permalink

    Re: 21 UC

    Monthly mean: from daily mid-ranges, or hourly-sampled average?

    Parker used daily Tmin to calculate monthly average temperatures in his paper which claimed that warm windy nights proved that there was no UHI.

    I am not certain whether this is standard usage at HadCRU, but with a steady decrease in diurnal temperature difference over the past 150 years, the use of Tmin provides an added bonus which the use of Tmax, or an average of the two, would not provide.

    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 7:54 AM | Permalink

    Adjustment…I⳶e found a Spanish? weather site named Tu Tiempo…
    Compare their monthly values with Nasa-Giss or/and USHCN V 1/2…
    Big Brother is a very split personality it seems…I am going through
    Mr Hansenⳳ? adjusted? US “rural” weather stations from west to
    east most of the West of Missisippi done 7 out of 250 or so have
    the guy with the termite-infested leg …Albert Goreⳳ 2005 as the
    warmest year … 6 of them in NW Nebraska…Impressing…Gentle
    Women and Gentle Men (To use the same big words as the IPCC SPM guy did
    2 weeks ago…) We may have (90% probability)a case of of “unintentional” “fraud”
    of some 10% of humanity…Basically middle class, middle aged people
    with fairly dull lives like myself…If warming hysteria gets even
    worse I plan a world stand-up tour…named “BBTRCFOGATPB” Which every
    intelligent person real-lies means BRINGING BACK THE RIGHT CLIMATE FOR

  28. W.R.Newberry
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

    Re #17
    He’s referring to the outline that the dust left.

  29. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    I looked at the 25 warmest years at your link. Looking at all 25 warmest years, I went down the the first column (V1) and looked to see whether the same year was higher (warmer) or lower (colder) on the new beta data version.

    As I got past the first ten, I realized that I could predict that if the year were prior to 1986, then it would be lower in V2. If the data were after 1986, then the V2 ranking would be higher. 1986 moves up on V2. Two years, 1987 and 1921 did not change. There are two exceptions, 2006 and 1998 swap positions. In addition, 1941 drops off the V2 chart and 1995 is added to V2.

    I would expect that in a stochastic process that deviations above and below the mean would be randomly distributed. Logically it would follow that adjustments due to “recent scientific advances that better address uncertainties in the instrumental record” would likewise be randomly distributed. I would certainly not expect that all data before a certain date would be adjusted lower and all but one of the years after that date would be adjusted higher. Clearly, the selection method for these adjustments is not based on the temperature data, but rather on whether it was taken before or after 1986.

    One could argue that this is simply a coincidence. If roulette or craps games operated with this sort of coincidental predictibility, the Las Vegas casinos would have vanished long ago.

  30. Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 10:04 AM | Permalink

    Without data, Jones 1990 is next to nothing. No figure showing rural data vs. gridded data.. Just Table 1 claiming 5% significant trends. I don’t know whether UHI matters or not, but combined with bucket corrections it is quite interesting topic 😉

  31. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

    #30. I did a couple of posts on bucket adjustments near the start of the blog . I don’t think that nearly enough attention has been paid to the bucket adjustments and people interested in UHI would do well to transfer some attention to SST data. Although here the original data is even more inaccessible.

    I recall some discussion that some gridcells that were entirely at sea appeared to show the influence of coastal seaports. It looks like the newer HadCRU versions contain more and more “optimal” smoothing so that it’s going to get harder and harder to disaggregate the data.

  32. Ross McKitrick
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    #21: The continued reliance on Jones et al (1990) to ‘disprove’ global land-use impacts on the gridded data amazes me. In the new SPM, page 4, they say: “Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values. {3.2}”

    Where does the 0.006 number come from? Ultimately from a conjecture in the conclusions of Jones 1990. That paper examined Eastern China, Western USSR and Eastern Australia. In the 1st region they found an upward bias in the urban data (despite allowing cities of up to 100,000 people to be classified as ‘rural’)–the urban series was the only one with a “significant” trend (who knows how they did the t-test). In the USSR sample they found one of two pooled rural-urban data series had half the post-1930 cooling trend observed in the rural series (which includes towns up to 10,000). They didn’t find any difference in the eastern Australia data. They also tabulated some earlier results showing urban US data had a larger trend than pooled rural-urban US data and concluded:

    “In none of the three regions studied here is there any indication of significant urban influence in either of the two gridded series relative to the rural series…The United States result therefore does seem to be atypical compared with other industrialized regions of the world. The results from the United States clearly represent an upper limit to the urban influence on hemispheric temperature trends.”

    Despite tabulating a sizable effect in 2 of 3 regions they somehow conclude it is observed in none of them. Their only fig leaf is that almost none of the trends are significant, up or down. But on that basis, for those who want to use these findings to imply something about the whole world’s land mass, their paper equally proves the absence of any 20th century hemispheric temperature trends. Then they conclude:

    It is unlikely that the remaining unsampled areas of the developing countries in tropical climates, or other highly populated parts of Europe, could significantly increase the overall urban bias above 0.05C during the 20th century. A bias of this order is an order of magnitude smaller than the hemispheric and global-scale warming trend observed over the last 100 years.

    The “0.05/century”, or 0.005 per decade, thus appears in the 2nd-last paragraph of the paper, without derivation, as a conjecture for the entire land-base of the world. And, as noted above in #21, ever since it has been recycled regularly into new papers and reports (ie IPCC 2001) which are then, in turn, cited as further support for it.

  33. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    RE: #13 – What Orwell wrote! 🙂

  34. David Brewer
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 11:35 AM | Permalink

    Hansen documented major adjustments to his GISS series for the USA in this paper:

    The paper is interesting because it details the corrections recommended by the Karl team, and the extent to which Hansen took them on. He accepted most, but increased the very low adjustment for urban warming.

    Another interesting feature of Hansen’s paper is that a trend is calculated for “unlit” stations as determined by satellite imagery. The raw trend is minus 0.05 degrees C (i.e., cooling) over the 20th century, but adjustments are then applied to bring this up to plus 0.35 degrees (pages 7 and 20 of the pdf).

    Despite claims that recent times have been hotter than the Dust Bowl years, the years 1930 to 1937 still account for all-time record high temperatures in 24 of the 50 US states:

  35. K
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 1:24 PM | Permalink

    #27 is correct. Dust (dirt really) collected around his shoes as he stood. After seventy years I can’t recall why he was standing outside or the color of the sky. To me the dust pattern was only a momentary curiousity.

    #28. Definitely. The adjustments are not to calibrate. There is a pattern and, and among other things, it cools those troublsome 1930s. That is not to say that adjustment is never justified. History may help a little here.

    In the 1930s cities were not building much and an increased heat island effect would not be expected. And even in WW2, the 1940s, there was little downtown growth; resources were being used for war, not urban buildings.

    A significant event of the 1950s was new airports. Many of them in rather small cities. At the same time massive airports (large heat collectors) were being built near larger cities. Moving the weather stations to new airports would have an effect. I suspect calibration improved and also recording standards.

    Little can be done about tinkering with data. Those believing in an adjustment will always make it and defend it. But much can be done about making sure original data is not lost. That is where effort should be made.

  36. David Smith
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    RE #35 Large airports are not only heat collectors but are also large open areas, where nightime breezes blow. Nightime breezes mix (cool) surface air with (warmer) above-surface air, elevating nightime temperatures.

    Older temperature stations in more-sheltered locations would not experience as strong of a breeze, and thus less mixing, and thus lower temperatures.

  37. tom
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    Even if they are manipulating the data set, are not the individual meteorological station’s data still available…untouched? I know here in Minneapolis (KMSP) that access to each days high/low/precip is available since 1890. I am pretty certain each weather service office has it’s own data set for the local meteorological station. If worse came to worse couldn’t we just request the raw data from individual NWS offices?

  38. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

    RE: #37 – That may be what’s required. Sad, if so.

  39. JerryB
    Posted Feb 16, 2007 at 5:26 PM | Permalink

    Re #37,

    Four days ago I stumbled on an NCDC website that has a file of about a
    gigabyte of daily min/max and prcp data from 32815 stations of 135

    I hope soon to put together a summary of how much of which kinds of data
    are included for what time periods for which stations.

  40. Carl Smith
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 12:18 AM | Permalink

    #39 JerryB, sounds like a gold mine to me – I hope you have burnt backup copies onto CDs or something.

    I don’t mean to sound cynical, but once it’s known someones accessed it, the original might just disappear into thin air or be secured so only ‘approved’ people can get access.

  41. Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 7:16 AM | Permalink

    Indeed, it seems to be the Jones 1990 value 0.05 C / century recycled again and again. In Folland 2001 et al. it is just doubled to get ‘2-sigma’. In Brohan et al it is 0.0055 C / decade, but they use Jones value as 0.05 C for 1900-1990 period. 0.05/9 = 0.0055555555555555…

    BTW, there’s an interesting news article on clouds and global warming in Nature 27 Sep 1990. (Next issue after Jones article):

    ‘The question of whether clouds would substantially change the prediction of global warming caused by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been much debated, not least because there is no simple way of answering it with precision while back-of-the envelope calculations exist on either side and are memorable, even compelling. That is why the issue has been about for twenty years.’

    Should we say 40 years by now?

  42. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 7:24 AM | Permalink

    Re: 36, David,

    I agree with you about the effect of mixing over airports. I also believe that urban areas have more verticle mixing than rural areas due to the fact that urban buildings cause increased turbulence which increases mixing.

    When I read Parker’s paper stating that warm windy nights prove the UHI does not exist, I disagreed with his conclusion because it appeared to me that he was only considering two dimensions. I believed then and now that warm windy nights over urban areas are caused in part by vertical mixing.

    Parker’s assumption was that the warmth was blown into urban areas by the wind. I assume that the warmth comes from vertical mixing and that the source of this warm air over cities is the cities themselves. I therefore believe that Parker’s conclusions are wrong. Far from refuting the existance of UHIs, I beleive that Parker’s warm windy nights prove that UHIs exist.

  43. Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    0.3 C bucket adjustment? Check Brohan et al Figure 12. Green error in the sea temperatures is coverage error, not measurement error.. So quite accurate adjustment, the red band is not very thick.

    There are claims of great accuracy.

  44. TN_Skeptic
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

    Tom Nelson (poster #37, I suspect) linked his Ivory-bill Skeptic blog to this website, so I believe whatever is stated here.

  45. Norm Kalmanovitch
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    The entire AGW case rests on a causal relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
    There are monthly values for CO2 concentrations from Mauna Loa and there are monthly temperature anomalies from satellite data from 1978.
    If these two data sets are correlated there should be at least a 50% correlation for the AGW case to even be possible!

    It would be a very good exercise to correlate these two data sets independently and see if the results match the 22% correlation that I have been made aware of.

    If this is the case then there is positive proof that AGW is wrong using the very data that the AGW group cherry picks to make their case ie 1998 highest temp ever on record but not the temp drop from 2005 to 2006.
    Norm K

  46. David Smith
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    On an entirely different note, the tropical Pacific looks like it’s trying to switch in a cool La Nina direction. Click on the “assorted plots” button of

    and look at the lower image. The lower image is a temperature cross-section of the Pacific, at the equator. Note the blob of cool water rising on the right side (Eastern Pacific). Equally interesting is the coolness on the west (Warm Pool) side.
    The surface winds don’t appear to support a full-blown La Nina , at least yet, but cooling is underway nevertheless. 2007 may continue the flatline global temperature pattern of the last five years.

    And on another entirely different note, there’s a news story this morning about an Australian paraglider that was sucked into a thunderstorm and rose to 10,000 metres (32,000 feet). The temperature there is about -40C and the air pressure is about one-third that of the surface. Updrafts and downdrafts can be 80km/hr and occur side by side.

    The paraglider lived, amazingly, but with frostbite injuries. That was the ride of a lifetime.

  47. tom
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    I’m sure there can be some mixing due to the heat isle effect itself. On relatively calm nites when heat isle is most noticable
    the relative heat of the city compared to the coolness of surrounding grasslands etc…the heat differential will cause some draw
    of the air into the city. However, from my observations (20 yr meteorologist) if it is clear and calm it is usually calm in the city
    as well, but there likely is some draw from the cool surroundings into the city and then vertically mixed some. However if it is
    a large-scale synoptic forcing that is driving the wind the temp difference between city and rural is greatly reduced, even on clear
    nights but there is still some UHI that is noticed even on these nights. It is dependent on wind strength. In any event, I live in
    Minneapolis/St.Paul and have observed that UHI can be as great as 7-10F on clear calm nights but the overall averaged UHI signal is much
    less of course but I would suspect imperically that it is likely magnitudes more than GISS or CRU has corrected for.

    Each site needs to be gone over with a fine toothed comb in order to see what is really going on. I mean, if were going to take one
    meteorlogical station and statistically fit it to a large area to represent said area, well we have a lot of work to do put it that

  48. tom
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 10:14 AM | Permalink

    -Parker’s assumption was that the warmth was blown into urban areas by the wind. I assume that the warmth comes from vertical mixing and that the source of this warm air over cities is the cities themselves. I therefore believe that Parker’s conclusions are wrong. Far from refuting the existance of UHIs, I beleive that Parker’s warm windy nights prove that UHIs exist.-

    This is poppycock! Warm air at night does not originate in surrounding rural areas relative to city. Warm air is NEVER blown into a city at
    night from rural in a neutral airmass. If a warm front or airmass change is occurring then yes, of course but otherwise no.

  49. JP
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    I looked at temperature data from Huntley Montana. This location was chosen because it was about 20 miles from where I live and is a small rural agricultural community. Simple yearly averages were done and then plotted for 2 30 year periods which appeared to be close to the same. The average yearly temperature for 1912-1942 was 46.2 and from 1976-2006 was 46.1. Long-Duration Drought Variability and Impacts on Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from Glacier National Park, Montana talks about how Glacier appears to be influenced by a 60 year oscillation caused by the PDO. Huntley’s temperature records also show a strong 60 year oscillation.

    Montana has been a drought for the last 7 years. Fort Peck Reservoir which is 134 miles long is over 30 feet below full pool. In Montana severe drought lasted from 1928-1939 with an average rainfall of -25% below average. Our current drought has lasted from 1999-2006 and is -16% below average. Average is based on records from 1951-2001. I hope our current drought does not last another 4 years.

  50. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    What was your source for the Huntley data?

  51. JP
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

  52. JP
    Posted Feb 17, 2007 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    re:49 Should have been AMO not PDO.

  53. James Lane
    Posted Feb 18, 2007 at 1:32 AM | Permalink

    Re 46

    The paraglider pilot was actually a German girl, in Australia for the world championships. They were able to download the complete log of the flight from her GPS. She was sucked up at an average speed of 20m/s, peaking at 33m/s. She lost consciousness for about an hour, topped out at 10,000m, came to at about 6,000m and was able to pilot the rig (which was covered in ice) to the ground. A Taiwanese pilot was sucked into the same storm and killed.

  54. JerryB
    Posted Feb 21, 2007 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    This comment constitutes a correction to my comment #23:

    Something odd (no number for 2006) about the usatemps.702 file,
    which I downloaded from
    a few days ago, got me wondering. I double checked the original, and
    it matched; still no 2006 number.

    So, I went back to the page at
    and found that the link has changed to
    and that version has a 2006 number. It also has changes of numbers
    for prior years, including the 2005 number being closer to what it was
    last June. However, the numbers for several years have changed by
    0.1 C, or more.

  55. JerryB
    Posted Feb 21, 2007 at 11:40 AM | Permalink

    I should add that when I downloaded from the old link, I
    did so by using my bookmarks. I do not want to suggest that
    the link changed within the past few days.

  56. robert simpson
    Posted Feb 23, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    seems you have discovered what is truely AGW ….

  57. JerryB
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    It appears the the output of USHCN V2 has been posted at

  58. JerryB
    Posted Mar 10, 2007 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

    I prematurely hit the submit button on my previous comment.

    A quick glance gives me the impression that while there are
    many new numbers, most of the numbers are the same as with
    the previous version, and that the raw, and TOB adjustment
    numbers are unchanged (but for rounding error. they seem
    never to round the same way from one issue to the next).

    Another quick glance gives me the impression that the new
    numbers have not yet been added to GHCN.

  59. JerryB
    Posted Mar 12, 2007 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    Comparing averages of differences between the recently
    posted USHCN monthly mean numbers, and those previously
    posted, gives me the impression that the new numbers may
    not be from USHCN V2. The average differences are very
    small, and their directions seem not as one might expect
    from the NCDC web page referenced by Steve at the top of
    this thread. I’ll post a couple of graphs either later
    today, or tomorrow.

  60. JerryB
    Posted Mar 12, 2007 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

    Graphs comparing new/old USHCN adjustments are at

    My guess is that the recently posted data are *not* from
    USHCN Version 2, but that’s just a guess.

  61. JerryB
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    Regarding USHCN updates:

    At the CDIAC USHCN site, you find a USHCN update with data through 2002,
    but at the NCDC USHCN site, more recent updates have been posted.

    an update with data through 2003 was posted in early 2005 (it has since
    been replaced). A copy of the mean data has been placed at
    in case you would like to review it.

    In August, or September, 2006, USHCN updates through early 2006 showed
    up in GHCN, and at GISS, without having been posted at the NCDC USHCN
    site (or at CDIAC).

    Then on March 1 of 2007, an update was posted at
    but did not get included in either GHCN, or GISS, as far as I can tell.
    I discussed that update briefly in comments 57 – 60 above shortly

  62. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 9:02 AM | Permalink

    Jerry, in the file archived on MArch 1, 2007, the latest information is Dec 2002. Do you have an exact URL for any USHCN archive with later data?

  63. JerryB
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    I just re-downloaded that file, and looked at it in a text
    editor, and the 2003 to late 2006 data are there.

    When uncompressed, the file size is 80921600 bytes including
    line feeds, and has 558080 lines. Do those numbers match
    what you have?

  64. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 10:10 AM | Permalink

    I downloaded it again and, yes, I’ve got 555080 lines. Funny thing is that the version that I have dated 5/27/2006 is smaller, but, as you observe the CDIAC version is different and older than the NOAA version and maybe that’s the difference. I’ll update my ushcn records accordingly; thanks.

  65. JerryB
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 10:42 AM | Permalink

    Good. Since it appears that that update has not been added
    to GHCN or GISS, and since there are some differences in its
    adjustments relative to other USHCN updates, it may be of
    very limited, or no, value to you in the comparisons that
    you have been doing, but I did want you to be aware of its

    My guess is that GHCN and GISS are awaiting the release of
    USHCN V2 data.

  66. Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    Re 32, 41, see my page

  67. Barry
    Posted Jun 15, 2007 at 2:55 PM | Permalink

    A few years back I saw satellite images of Atlanta showing it creating it’s own thunderstorms. No heat island ‘fer sure’.

  68. Vincent Gray
    Posted Oct 11, 2007 at 8:55 PM | Permalink

    The most interedting confession in Brohan et al is at the top of page 3

    ” It is always possible that some unknown error has contaminated the data, and no quantitative allowance can be made for such unknowns”

    They then have the gall to refer to the espert on this subject, Donald Rumsfeld, who in his June 2002 speech composed the following delicate poem

    “As we know, there are known knowns;
    There are things we know we know.
    We also know there are known unknowns;
    That is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns
    — the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

%d bloggers like this: