|
Post by icefisher on Apr 11, 2010 10:51:22 GMT
But not so interested in UAH. Why? Is it because UAH is compiled by two prominent global warming skeptics? Actually all science should be done by skeptics. All the best scientists claim to be skeptics. Its the way it should be. In my trade skepticism is the number one trait. . . .take nothing for granted. . . .test everything important to your numbers. . . .don't sign your opinion until your work is done. Of course the public exacts license requirements, competency requirements, due diligence requirements, standards of independence, and civil liability to provide a good wind for that sail. And in your first orientation as an apprentice it is pointed out that you have to go further than skepticism and independence, you have to document everything and you have to "appear" to be independent as well as be independent. Unfortunately, it seems academia chooses a path of accusing everybody else of a lack of independence and lackadaisically deals with documentation, figures that the product of their brains need no real world testing, and gives no consideration whatsoever to the appearance of their independence. So my too young, too naive, too stupid friend what do you expect the results should be?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 15, 2010 0:22:58 GMT
Why are skeptics trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done?
Probably because people who've had many years of experience in metrology understand at the very best the global surface station record is a guess, not even an estimation. What does that have to do with Jones? In fact your statement sounds like an admission that the global surface temperature record doesn't hinge on anything Jones has or hasn't done. Is this what you are saying? If so surely you can answer my question - why are skeptics (not necessarily you) trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done? That's got to be the worst excuse ever coming from a skeptic! You guys usually want all the t's crossed and i's dotted (way beyond the necessary in my opinion), but here you clearly are just giving UAH a free pass. If we don't know what to do with it, it must be correct! No need to audit that! That's a great claim given you've just claimed noone other than Roy Spencer and John Christy know what to do with the source code and data. So who did these exams? This is all fine with me understand, it's in line with how I think science works. But for skeptics you guys should be absolutely fuming mad that the UAH result hasn't been audited - and by audit you guys usually require all the raw data, the source code and intermediate working out too. But not so interested in UAH. Why? Is it because UAH is compiled by two prominent global warming skeptics? That's the rub you see because skeptics are keen to stress their "audit" ways of doing things - requesting all the raw data and source code - is just "good for science". But if that's the case then why isn't it good for UAH? No, the skeptics ignoring UAH suggests that the "audit" way of doing things is merely a means of attack on scientists and scientific results they don't like. I don't think there's much difference between the two, since that significant error in UAH was found and fixed a few years ago. Why doesn't someone FOIA for the UAH source code? Then we'd get it pretty immediately. Do you think that's a good idea? Skeptics usually seem to think that kind of move advances the science. I can only imagine the inconvenience and hassle this would cause Christy and Spencer though. Having to dump the code as-is in some zip file rather than getting to publish it neatly on a website. Imagine if a not-Christy-or-Lindzen climate scientist had responded to requests for data by saying "we are thinking of doing it but we don't know when it will be done". Would skeptics just kind of leave it at that? Suuuure. Why doesn't someone FOIA for the UAH source code? Then we'd get it pretty immediately. Do you think that's a good idea? Skeptics usually seem to think that kind of move advances the science. I can only imagine the inconvenience and hassle this would cause Christy and Spencer though. Having to dump the code as-is in some zip file rather than getting to publish it neatly on a website.
Imagine if a not-Christy-or-Lindzen climate scientist had responded to requests for data by saying "we are thinking of doing it but we don't know when it will be done".
Would skeptics just kind of leave it at that? Suuuure. Yes, you can only imagine..... Are Spencer and Christy hiding something? Be the first to employ an FOIA request. Do you think "losing" your data and refusing to release data used for a published paper is good practice? Briffa refused for 10 damn years until forced into it. Now we know why. What you fail to understand is the fact that satellite errors can be quantified and corrected. The surface station network is a mess and at best corrections are guesses and confirmation bias. There is a reason why NOAA is installing the USHCN-M.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 15, 2010 20:40:57 GMT
Yes, you can only imagine..... Hardly, the skeptics have a clear track record of only turning the eye of sauron towards results they don't like. As I pointed out skeptics have not FOIAd for the UAH source code nor conducted an "audit" into it. I know they aren't hiding anything in their temperature record. Using my unique AGW logic you see. RSS satellite record confirms UAH results quite nicely in my opinion. Just as GISTEMP confirms the HadCRUT results and therefore tells me CRU aren't hiding anything in their temperature record. And I know for a fact NASA GISTEMP isn't hiding anything. The difference between me and skeptics is largely that I can appreciate the big picture. As a recent Economist article put it: "In any complex scientific picture of the world there will be gaps, misperceptions and mistakes. Whether your impression is dominated by the whole or the holes will depend on your attitude to the project at hand. You might say that some see a jigsaw where others see a house of cards. Jigsaw types have in mind an overall picture and are open to bits being taken out, moved around or abandoned should they not fit. Those who see houses of cards think that if any piece is removed, the whole lot falls down. When it comes to climate, academic scientists are jigsaw types, dissenters from their view house-of-cards-ists."www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298In both cases it wasn't their data to release. Briffa was using someone elses data. CRU was using a copy of station data from NMOs. The data was available from its respective source, not the users of it. How do skeptics know the quantifications and corrections are valid? Me, I don't need to know because RSS shows the same result. That's the jigsaw. Skeptics however, if they are going to apply the same reasoning to the satellite records as they do to the surface records, should look at the UAH satellite record as one card in a house of cards. As UAH source code isn't available, skeptics should (if they are being consistent and not hypocrites) start claiming the satellite record result of RSS is in doubt too. Senator Inhofe should send out a memo saying there are large doubts about the acedemic integrity of all global satellite records, etc. There was also a reason why the RSS satellite record was set up (hint: www.remss.com/papers/msu/A_Reanalysis_of_the_MSU_Channel_2_Tropospheric_Temperature_Record.pdf)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2010 1:13:47 GMT
The difference between me and skeptics is largely that I can appreciate the big picture. Some big picture stuff continues to emerge. Here a project of going through Australia's temperature record is in phase 6. This phase 6 with the province of Victoria registering "value-added" adjustments of 133% of the raw data warming trend. It is almost the entire .5degC/century in one of Australia's populated provinces an piles on top of other phases. Heck folks we aren't even out in the sticks yet! kenskingdom.wordpress.com/Here is an enlarging picture for Socold!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2010 2:40:45 GMT
This is why you have to get the unajusted raw data. What a lot of folks call raw is homoginized data. Sure is NOT raw.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2010 3:53:32 GMT
This is why you have to get the unajusted raw data. What a lot of folks call raw is homoginized data. Sure is NOT raw. Probably gets rehomogenized at each level.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 1, 2010 4:41:25 GMT
Another question is how many countries this is happening in. People point to the US and say "See, the US record is fine"...but the US record SHOWS NO WARMING since the last warm period. The ocean data is sketchy back before the satellite era...its difficult to know how many other nations "top climate scientists" (some guy tracking temperature) have tweaked the data to fit their expectations of CAGW.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2010 7:47:11 GMT
Another question is how many countries this is happening in. People point to the US and say "See, the US record is fine"...but the US record SHOWS NO WARMING since the last warm period. The ocean data is sketchy back before the satellite era...its difficult to know how many other nations "top climate scientists" (some guy tracking temperature) have tweaked the data to fit their expectations of CAGW. That's a very simplified view. A more nuanced look does not support your implication. Viewing the US as a single giant homogenised record is inappropriate. The US temperature record shows a lot of geographical variability with seasonal characteristics that vary on decadal timescales. It happens to have culminated in a particular warm period across most of the US for a few years during the 1930s. But many individual parts of the US *have* shown plenty of warming since the last warm period. For example, in the mid-west, the last decade is warmer than the decade of the 1930s. Jan-Mar temperatures in all states other than those north of the Gulf of Mexico are about 2C warmer in the last decade. Since we now have a bunch of people over at Lucia's blog poring over the raw unadjusted data, I think it is safe to say that the claims of fiddles of US temperatures are as ludicrous as originally stated. It's also safe to say that that important point will no doubt go in through lots of people's ears and out the other.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 1, 2010 8:05:18 GMT
I didn't say the US record was fudged. I meant the US record has been verified as being reasonably (obviously not perfectly) accurate...but that the rest of the world needs some serious scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2010 9:06:46 GMT
Your statement that the US shows no warming implies that you are suggesting that other places would also show no warming if they had been properly done.
My point is that most parts of the US do show warming, particularly in the last 30 years - in line with many other places and in line with ocean data. The warm 1930s in the US is the anomaly, and I would not necessarily expect to see it replicated anywhere else.
(its a good example though of how vulnerable we are to a tiny bit of climate change happening for a short amount of time).
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 1, 2010 9:50:19 GMT
Right so what you're saying steve is that the US has warmed...but it's still no hotter than it was before and that even though a couple countries have already been found to have been "correcting" their way into a warming trend...it would be silly to think that there might be still more with no REAL trend? Right...obviously I'm the one that sounds crazy.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jul 1, 2010 14:39:54 GMT
Steve says: "My point is that most parts of the US do show warming, particularly in the last 30 years - in line with many other places and in line with ocean data. The warm 1930s in the US is the anomaly, and I would not necessarily expect to see it replicated anywhere else."
So if _most_ parts of the US show warming AND the US overall has not warmed - _somewhere_ in the US must be getting extremely cold I wonder where that is?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jul 1, 2010 14:47:30 GMT
Steve says: "My point is that most parts of the US do show warming, particularly in the last 30 years - in line with many other places and in line with ocean data. The warm 1930s in the US is the anomaly, and I would not necessarily expect to see it replicated anywhere else."
So if _most_ parts of the US show warming AND the US overall has not warmed - _somewhere_ in the US must be getting extremely cold I wonder where that is? Really it is all that hot air in DC skewing the numbers towards warming.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2010 15:29:19 GMT
Steve says: "My point is that most parts of the US do show warming, particularly in the last 30 years - in line with many other places and in line with ocean data. The warm 1930s in the US is the anomaly, and I would not necessarily expect to see it replicated anywhere else."
So if _most_ parts of the US show warming AND the US overall has not warmed - _somewhere_ in the US must be getting extremely cold I wonder where that is? Yeah Steve is pooh poohing the most solid science in the entire collection via an inspecific accusation of it being an anomaly. One can take Steve's argument apply it anywhere in the world you wish, multiply it by factors derived from of sampling rates to cover far larger regions, enlarge it based upon the fact Phil Jones dog ate the raw data for the CRU sampled regions of the world, and apply it at will. If you take Steve's speculation and accept it you can deconstruct the entire temperature record with it. Heck Steve is just trying to divert attention from how Australia's temperature record is being reconstructed and divert attention from the results. If Steve wants to make such a claim he should embark on the process that Ken has in Australia and do it in a methodical, open and transparent manner. Of course he won't do that. Much easier to sit in his easy chair and take pot shots.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 1, 2010 20:58:17 GMT
"This is why you have to get the unajusted raw data. What a lot of folks call raw is homoginized data. Sure is NOT raw." GHCN data is raw. The only thing that's been applied is quality assurance, which means they have flagged values. They haven't adjusted values. As for the Australia station data, I don't really care about the BOM High Quality dataset. Ive never used it or see references to it. GHCN and GISTEMP are independent of it. It would take up a lot of my time to investigate the claims being made about BOM adjustments, time I do not wish to spend. Ive spent enough time looking at GHCN and GISTEMP adjustments. However on cursory examination of the first "phase" I note the author has not compared the Cairn station to nearby stations to see why the GISTEMP homogenization was performed. The GISTEMP neighbours search function suggests the upward adjustment to early 20th century part was due to nearby stations showing such an upward trend at that time: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501942870003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=3data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501942870003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=5I'll reiterate again that the GISTEMP and GHCN records we are all familiar with don't rely on Australia' BOM "High Quality" climate record. So Australia is not an example of the big picture I was talking about.
|
|