|
Post by boxman on Jan 15, 2010 14:03:53 GMT
What has it got to do with "logical reasoning"? There is no logic that says older answers must be better (or worse) than newer answers. There are plenty of analyses that show that whatever manipulation has gone on makes virtually *no* difference to the overall global trend over the last 50 years. I've not looked at much info prior to that, so I don't know about the 1940's US temperature. I suggest you take a look at older GISS releases then and compare it with recent revisions. These changes have basically changed the US temperature completely.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 14:10:05 GMT
since US temperatures are arguably the highest quality data we have, and a "small" error of .01 degrees was enough to make 1934 the warmest year, what does that say about the warming over that 64 year period? it would seem to indicate that there has been little actual warming since 1934........ 1934 and 1998 were within a few hundredths of a degree of each other both before the error, after the error and after the correction. The difference was always statistically insignificant and the ranks easily swapped just by small changes in the data. Alarmists like Watt's (dabbing in "there's a fraud here!" alarmism, so this is how I will refer to them) spin this issue to make it sound like more than a statistically insignificant change. Spinning headlines for his blog view count by sacrificing scientific accuracy and perhaps honesty (although I generally prefer to think Watt's is incompetent than deliberately manipulative)
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 15, 2010 14:14:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2010 14:16:24 GMT
Ridiculous. It was an error. All the data has been "manipulated" to generate the various plots that are presented. If you look at the raw data the "manipulation" doesn't much affect the overall trend in warming. They are *paid* to manipulate the data, because manipulating the data most likely reduces rather than increases biases that have occurred over the decades as the station site has changed in character. Some biases go up and some go down. Steve, mathematically you are perfectly correct - it is a minor effect to a minor temperature set. Politically you are being (deliberately?) naive. Politics is ALL a about perception. Instead of being able to say 1998 was the warmest year ever in the US it was now necessary to say 1998 was almost as warm as 1934. From a political perspective this is a HUGE difference in argument. It was interesting that almost as soon as the correction was made and 1934 swapped places by th 0.01 amount that the response was that they were within the margin of error - from people that had not even mentioned 1934 before. Just as SoCold does above.... But its a lot weaker argument for a politician.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 14:22:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 14:29:48 GMT
Possibly related to this note on the GISTEMP site: "November 13, 2009: NOAA is no longer updating the original version of the USHCN data; it ended in May 2007. The new version 2 currently extends to July 2009. Starting today, these newer data will be used in our analysis. Documentation and programs will be updated correspondingly."
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 14:32:59 GMT
Ridiculous. It was an error. All the data has been "manipulated" to generate the various plots that are presented. If you look at the raw data the "manipulation" doesn't much affect the overall trend in warming. They are *paid* to manipulate the data, because manipulating the data most likely reduces rather than increases biases that have occurred over the decades as the station site has changed in character. Some biases go up and some go down. Steve, mathematically you are perfectly correct - it is a minor effect to a minor temperature set. Politically you are being (deliberately?) naive. Politics is ALL a about perception. Instead of being able to say 1998 was the warmest year ever in the US it was now necessary to say 1998 was almost as warm as 1934. From a political perspective this is a HUGE difference in argument. It was interesting that almost as soon as the correction was made and 1934 swapped places by th 0.01 amount that the response was that they were within the margin of error - from people that had not even mentioned 1934 before. Just as SoCold does above.... But its a lot weaker argument for a politician. That is a complete crock. Read the released NASA emails again, but this time pay attention. Time and time again they refer to the fact that 1934 vs 1998 was always statistically insignificant and they mention they have always cautioned using such rankings. You'll have to demonstrate a headline with Hansen claiming 1998 was the warmest year in the US on record, ie back up your claims that it was ever cited as a big deal. I think you are just making stuff up. I see no evidence of the "political perception" you claim. If anything all the politics is coming from your "side" who are holding up a 1934 vs 1998 insignificant difference as some kind of fantasy evidence against AGW.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 15, 2010 14:51:14 GMT
I just finished watching the Coleman special.. To me it looks like it was not just US temperature stations that were tweaked. Thousands of stations all over the world has been removed from the data set and the historic temps are also calculated using only these stations that are still included. Not only that, but they also removed mainly stations showing cold bias while leaving those with warm bias intact.
So i dont see how you can blame watts for this....
But i guess that is just correction??
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2010 15:33:53 GMT
Ridiculous. It was an error. All the data has been "manipulated" to generate the various plots that are presented. If you look at the raw data the "manipulation" doesn't much affect the overall trend in warming. They are *paid* to manipulate the data, because manipulating the data most likely reduces rather than increases biases that have occurred over the decades as the station site has changed in character. Some biases go up and some go down. Steve, mathematically you are perfectly correct - it is a minor effect to a minor temperature set. Politically you are being (deliberately?) naive. Politics is ALL a about perception. Instead of being able to say 1998 was the warmest year ever in the US it was now necessary to say 1998 was almost as warm as 1934. From a political perspective this is a HUGE difference in argument. It was interesting that almost as soon as the correction was made and 1934 swapped places by th 0.01 amount that the response was that they were within the margin of error - from people that had not even mentioned 1934 before. Just as SoCold does above.... But its a lot weaker argument for a politician. I am not the one being naive. People who think that scientists such as Hansen are deliberately trying to suggest that 1934 was not the warmest year in the US based on a 0.01C difference are the naive ones. A press release for the Hansen 2001 paper quoted by socold says: "*but only* enough to make the temperature comparable to the 1930s" is a clear emphasis of 1930s warmth. Why would he make that emphasis if he was seeking to hide the lack of net warming? Because he's honest and people like Watts aren't perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 15, 2010 15:44:13 GMT
I just finished watching the Coleman special.. To me it looks like it was not just US temperature stations that were tweaked. Thousands of stations all over the world has been removed from the data set and the historic temps are also calculated using only these stations that are still included. Not only that, but they also removed mainly stations showing cold bias while leaving those with warm bias intact. So i dont see how you can blame watts for this.... But i guess that is just correction?? I think we're blaming Watts for being a prat about 1934 not global temperature, and for believing his surfacestation project will ever show anything of interest when it has been shown that analysis of the 70 best stations *in Watts' view* show the same warming tendency as analysis of them all. And analysis of the sea surface temperatures show the same warming tendency. And analysis of the satellite temperatures show similar trends over a shorter period. And analysis of natural habitats show earlier appearance of spring behaviour and later appearance of winter behaviour. Read between the lines for goodness sake. Some stations have been adjusted up and some adjusted down. Therefore it will be possible to find hundreds of stations with upward adjustments and cleverly display them on a web page to imply fraud. But the fraud is to ignore the hundreds of stations that go in the opposite direction. Analyse the raw data for yourself and you will find you get a similar overall trend. I know that because it is so easy to do that someone would have done it if the results had indicated otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 15, 2010 16:42:22 GMT
Trivial to do? from another thread, defend the undocumented changes as you will, but why? " USHCN vs USHCN Version 2 – more induced warmth January 15, 2010 by E.M.Smith USHCN – U.S. Historic Cimate Network. I had intended to make a study comparing USHCN (what was used by GIStemp up until just a couple of months ago, and which “cut off” in May of 2007, leaving only the limited GHCN – Global Historic Climate Network, stations) to the newer USHCN Version2 (that I will shorten to USHCN.v2). The question I was going to answer was “Did my ‘eyeball’ inspection of the data that looked like it had an induced warming trend stand up to analysis?” Well, in comments over on Wattsupwiththat, it looks like another person is already doing that work, and finding an induced warming trend from the “update”. Mike McMillan (17:28:30) : I’ve completed USHCN vs USHCN version 2 blink comparison charts for Wisconsin. As with the Illinois charts, the majority of stations had their raw data adjusted to show more warming by lowering the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century. That brings the raw data more in line with the GISS homogenized versions. I haven’t blinked the original GISS with the new homogenized charts yet, but I’d bet a nickle they’ll show even more warming. Wisconsin original USHCN raw / revised raw data - www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htmIllinois original raw / revised raw - www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions.htmRevised raw data. Oxymoron?" chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/ushcn-vs-ushcn-version-2-more-induced-warmth/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 15, 2010 17:54:49 GMT
Steve, mathematically you are perfectly correct - it is a minor effect to a minor temperature set. Politically you are being (deliberately?) naive. Politics is ALL a about perception. Instead of being able to say 1998 was the warmest year ever in the US it was now necessary to say 1998 was almost as warm as 1934. From a political perspective this is a HUGE difference in argument. It was interesting that almost as soon as the correction was made and 1934 swapped places by th 0.01 amount that the response was that they were within the margin of error - from people that had not even mentioned 1934 before. Just as SoCold does above.... But its a lot weaker argument for a politician. I am not the one being naive. People who think that scientists such as Hansen are deliberately trying to suggest that 1934 was not the warmest year in the US based on a 0.01C difference are the naive ones. A press release for the Hansen 2001 paper quoted by socold says: "*but only* enough to make the temperature comparable to the 1930s" is a clear emphasis of 1930s warmth. Why would he make that emphasis if he was seeking to hide the lack of net warming? Because he's honest and people like Watts aren't perhaps? "Global surface temperatures in 1998 set a new record by a wide margin" See central column Jan 12, 1999 - Associated Press Report "Last Year was the hottest year on record according to NASA researchers"news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19990112&id=hIQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=swMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5553,5115094 A report was released to the press - hence the story - and quietly in the background in less publicized areas there were caveats. That's why I am showing a newspaper clipping - this is the audience that was aimed at. I am sorry but to me this is a common approach when you want to make the most out of figures that don't quite say what you want - its seen not only in this subject but in other areas of politics. Its called spin.
|
|
|
Post by boxman on Jan 15, 2010 18:07:28 GMT
I just finished watching the Coleman special.. To me it looks like it was not just US temperature stations that were tweaked. Thousands of stations all over the world has been removed from the data set and the historic temps are also calculated using only these stations that are still included. Not only that, but they also removed mainly stations showing cold bias while leaving those with warm bias intact. So i dont see how you can blame watts for this.... But i guess that is just correction?? I think we're blaming Watts for being a prat about 1934 not global temperature, and for believing his surfacestation project will ever show anything of interest when it has been shown that analysis of the 70 best stations *in Watts' view* show the same warming tendency as analysis of them all. And analysis of the sea surface temperatures show the same warming tendency. And analysis of the satellite temperatures show similar trends over a shorter period. And analysis of natural habitats show earlier appearance of spring behaviour and later appearance of winter behaviour. Read between the lines for goodness sake. Some stations have been adjusted up and some adjusted down. Therefore it will be possible to find hundreds of stations with upward adjustments and cleverly display them on a web page to imply fraud. But the fraud is to ignore the hundreds of stations that go in the opposite direction. Analyse the raw data for yourself and you will find you get a similar overall trend. I know that because it is so easy to do that someone would have done it if the results had indicated otherwise. I am actually one of those few skeptics that believe that global temperatures have infact increased since the 30-40s. I just think the warming is mostly natural and exaggerated and i find such manipulation of data disgusting still and not really scientific at all. I am however pretty convinced certain that MWP and previous warm periods in holoocene beat the current "warm" period by far. I think most of the so called global warming is due to recovery from little ice age and from decades of grand maximum solar activity. We should know for sure within 10-20 years anyways. I will admit that i am wrong if temperatures increase over the next decade or two on average. Nothing of this excuses the removal of thousands of temperature stations though. I dont see how even a global warming believer could defend such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 21:06:53 GMT
I am not the one being naive. People who think that scientists such as Hansen are deliberately trying to suggest that 1934 was not the warmest year in the US based on a 0.01C difference are the naive ones. A press release for the Hansen 2001 paper quoted by socold says: "*but only* enough to make the temperature comparable to the 1930s" is a clear emphasis of 1930s warmth. Why would he make that emphasis if he was seeking to hide the lack of net warming? Because he's honest and people like Watts aren't perhaps? "Global surface temperatures in 1998 set a new record by a wide margin" See central column Jan 12, 1999 - Associated Press Report "Last Year was the hottest year on record according to NASA researchers"news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19990112&id=hIQUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=swMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5553,5115094 A report was released to the press - hence the story - and quietly in the background in less publicized areas there were caveats. That's why I am showing a newspaper clipping - this is the audience that was aimed at. I am sorry but to me this is a common approach when you want to make the most out of figures that don't quite say what you want - its seen not only in this subject but in other areas of politics. Its called spin. That article is talking about the global record, where indeed 1998 was by far the warmest year on record. Whereas Steve is talking about the US record.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 15, 2010 21:11:53 GMT
Nothing of this excuses the removal of thousands of temperature stations though. I dont see how even a global warming believer could defend such a thing. I don't know what you are talking of but I know there is a large drop in stations in GHCN v2 since it was published in the late 90s, so perhaps that's it. That's because when it was produced they went and obtained station temperature data from a variety of sources around the world. Since then updates are from the few stations that automatically report. This is not someone pro-actively "removing" stations.
|
|