"Climategate" critic: No bias in temperature data

[steve]

No evidence of bias in temperature data says "Climategate" critic, author of "The Crutape Letters", and regular at climateaudit, Steven Mosher.

judithcurry.com/2011/02/17/on-the-consilience-of-evidence-argument/#comments

steven mosher | February 18, 2011 at 6:35 am | Reply

“The increasing evidence for bias in temperature adjustments alone can negate your arguments.”

huh? I’ve seen no evidence for bias. None. Been look at it since 2007. Papers, code, data. Every last bit I can put my hands on. increasing evidence? increasing? since when and how much.

[magellan]

Feb 18, 2011 15:48:39 GMT steve said:

No evidence of bias in temperature data says "Climategate" critic, author of "The Crutape Letters", and regular at climateaudit, Steven Mosher.

judithcurry.com/2011/02/17/on-the-consilience-of-evidence-argument/#comments

steven mosher | February 18, 2011 at 6:35 am | Reply

“The increasing evidence for bias in temperature adjustments alone can negate your arguments.”

huh? I’ve seen no evidence for bias. None. Been look at it since 2007. Papers, code, data. Every last bit I can put my hands on. increasing evidence? increasing? since when and how much.

Why are you pimping Mosher?

Notice steve didn't refer to Mosher as a "skeptic". Note as well Mosher ignores virtually all published literature contrary to his unqualified statements. He's famous for that.

[steve]

Magellan,

I like Mosher enough that I'd be prepared to read his book if it weren't coathored by Fuller, who I don't like. He got quite involved in discussing UHI on McIntyre's blog in 2007 and read all the papers which seemed to change his mind on the subject. That perhaps makes him sceptical in the true sense. I don't want to label him though.

[magellan]

Feb 18, 2011 17:55:29 GMT steve said:

Magellan,

I like Mosher enough that I'd be prepared to read his book if it weren't coathored by Fuller, who I don't like. He got quite involved in discussing UHI on McIntyre's blog in 2007 and read all the papers which seemed to change his mind on the subject. That perhaps makes him sceptical in the true sense. I don't want to label him though.

He is like Goddard and LS; stubborn to the core. For example, when Bob Tisdale posted his GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data at WUWT, Mosh, in his normal style, flat out said it was bunk. One must be careful when forming an argument against Tisdale because he will likely pin your ears back with data, and that's exactly what happened to Mosh; he didn't even bother responding after Tisdale proved it step by step. Tamino deleted Tisdale's post when confronted.

BTW, Hansen's entire argument for his Arctic "adjustments" is based on climate model simulations, not anything observable or measured.

When it's boiled down, there are basically a few defending the surface station network; Parker Petersen, and Karl which IPCC (for which they were lead authors....no conflicts there ) drew their conclusions from and ignored virtually all other opposing researchers.

Some of the very same articles posted here in the past were thrown at Mosher et al. They've NEVER once refuted them. They continue with the same broken record of "replication"; completely meaningless with respect to the published literature they either refuse or are unable to refute.

And now the latest discussion of CET is a bit amusing since any number of U.S. areas designated "rural" (defined by population rather than Hansen Lights=0) show no warming whatsoever. What's funnier still is Texas is nearly 2x in area than the U.K., but an even smaller portion of England that comprises CET is implied to somehow represent "global" temperatures.

UHI is not measured empirically, it is very subjective. Further, it isn't all about UHI despite Mosher's insistence. The local atmosphere boundary layer is altered by the land use change as well. There were significant thermometer issues, etc. etc. etc.

I live in a rural area. 30 years ago nearly all country roads were dirt. Today they are asphalt. You don't think that has an effect on local surface atmosphere conditions over time? Is CET landscape the same today as it was 30+ years ago?

Defend the SAT record with abandoned logic. The evidence that Mosher says doesn't exist is there, it's just he and Zeke & co. ignore it.

I've read the standard arguments by warmers on this video, mostly red herrings, but one thing it ferrets out is the 1200 km extrapolation nonsense, and the idea that a higher concentration of thermometers is no more meaningful than less. Before answering, I already have the Lights=0 in que.


Go ahead, continue repeating there's nothing wrong and say examples below "don't matter". It matters because the surface station network has never been calibrated or maintained in any way. And no, Parker/Petersen/Karl did not physically evaluate individual stations. Only the new USHCN-M meets the standards necessary to evaluate climate.
climateaudit.org/2008/02/15/how-gistemp-treats-spurious-data/

[glc]

I live in a rural area. 30 years ago nearly all country roads were dirt. Today they are asphalt. You don't think that has an effect on local surface atmosphere conditions over time? Is CET landscape the same today as it was 30+ years ago?

Probably not - but there are areas within the CET region that are the same as 30 years ago and the records can be compared with the CET record. If anything CET over-compensates for UHI. I live in an area where the local population has FALLEN significantly over the past 30-40 years. The area surrounding the local weather station has been unchanged in at least 60 years. The warming trend at this station is greater than the CET record.

Also remember Armagh. Many sceptics were saying that the Armagh observatory was the ideal place to get a historical perspective on the changing climate because of its relatively unchanged surroundings. The trouble is, over the past 30 years, Armagh has been warming faster than Aldergrove airport (about 30 miles away).

The evidence for greater urban warming is simply not there. Some places have warmed faster than others and I'm sure you can find cases where an urban area has warmed faster than a nearby rural area - but the reverse is also true.

[icefisher]

Feb 19, 2011 11:02:30 GMT glc said:

I live in a rural area. 30 years ago nearly all country roads were dirt. Today they are asphalt. You don't think that has an effect on local surface atmosphere conditions over time? Is CET landscape the same today as it was 30+ years ago?

Probably not - but there are areas within the CET region that are the same as 30 years ago and the records can be compared with the CET record. If anything CET over-compensates for UHI. I live in an area where the local population has FALLEN significantly over the past 30-40 years. The area surrounding the local weather station has been unchanged in at least 60 years. The warming trend at this station is greater than the CET record.

Also remember Armagh. Many sceptics were saying that the Armagh observatory was the ideal place to get a historical perspective on the changing climate because of its relatively unchanged surroundings. The trouble is, over the past 30 years, Armagh has been warming faster than Aldergrove airport (about 30 miles away).

The evidence for greater urban warming is simply not there. Some places have warmed faster than others and I'm sure you can find cases where an urban area has warmed faster than a nearby rural area - but the reverse is also true.

All your examples show GLC is that UHI if it is there is not easy to detect and measure. It is a microcosmic example of attributing warming to CO2. We don't understand why Armagh is warming faster than the airport so we also can't attribute UHI. Likewise we don't understand other global climate influences so we can't understand CO2.

Some pointy head types running around with a calculation built on an unreal world lab experiment of the effect of greenhouse gases simply is not convincing.

Its identical to somebody putting a thermometer next to a barbecue or next to a brick wall or in the middle of an asphalt playground and achieving an increase in temperatures.

The same pointy head guy can then run around proclaiming the world is warming from UHI and there is no way to refute the matter. The problem with AGW science is identical as people blow off AGW by pointing out the US has not warmed since the 1930's providing a continent-sized Armagh/Airport example.

And all the pointy head types can't see they are being inconsistent when they argue with each other.

I am going with the more level headed Pielke types and sort of divvying the warming up between various influences, including bias, noting that Steven Mosher with his degree in literature has no basis or skill in determining if bias exists or not. I can look at temperature records 24/7 for a few decades and it would be meaningless in determining if bias exists.

Auditing is a formal process of careful documentation and analysis. Its like if you claim skill in determining there is no bias lets see your workpapers and underlying data like we expect of everybody. Otherwise just stuff it. . . .everybody has biases. . . .thats why we have formal rules and wise men do not give anybody a pass including independent professionals who should know better.

But this is just nonsense coming from Mosher. Its like the marketing of his book going on how he was "on scene" and "carefully holding back". My gawd the entire world was on scene and some held back better than others. Mosher's involvement in this discussion is just book marketing, "See I am not a skeptic lunatic like the people who hate my book think I am". Mosher is just full of himself and has become one of the pointy head types who thinks he knows it all.

[hunterson]

steve,
Are you also accepting of Mosher's critiques of cliamte science?

[steve]

Magellan,

As far as I can see, Mosher is *not* as stubborn as you make out. He originally believed the UHI effect was important and, in quite a long thread on Parker's paper, changed his mind after apparently considering the issues and reading relevant papers, including those suggested by or written by Pielke Jr. And this was despite the best attempts of Steve McIntyre to derail discussions with inconsequential difficulties.

I guess I am "pimping" Mosher (what a disturbing idea) because he remains distrustful of scientist's motives, is sceptical of catastrophic AGW, and appears to have looked into the issues quite deeply from a AGW-sceptical viewpoint.

It's interesting to watch hard-line sceptics get bitter about traitors to their cause - seen it happen to Roy Spencer (when he disowned Miskolczi), Steve McIntyre (when he wouldn't back prosecuting Mann), and now Steve Mosher.

hunter,

You'd have to be more specific, particularly as I've not read his book.

[hunterson]

Feb 19, 2011 17:19:24 GMT steve said:

Magellan,

As far as I can see, Mosher is *not* as stubborn as you make out. He originally believed the UHI effect was important and, in quite a long thread on Parker's paper, changed his mind after apparently considering the issues and reading relevant papers, including those suggested by or written by Pielke Jr. And this was despite the best attempts of Steve McIntyre to derail discussions with inconsequential difficulties.

I guess I am "pimping" Mosher (what a disturbing idea) because he remains distrustful of scientist's motives, is sceptical of catastrophic AGW, and appears to have looked into the issues quite deeply from a AGW-sceptical viewpoint.

It's interesting to watch hard-line sceptics get bitter about traitors to their cause - seen it happen to Roy Spencer (when he disowned Miskolczi), Steve McIntyre (when he wouldn't back prosecuting Mann), and now Steve Mosher.

hunter,

You'd have to be more specific, particularly as I've not read his book.

If you have not read his book then you are not really able to discuss Mosher's views or climategate from an informed perspective.
Why don't you get back on this after you are up to speed a bit instead of repeating crap from believers?

[magellan]

Feb 19, 2011 17:19:24 GMT steve said:

Magellan,

As far as I can see, Mosher is *not* as stubborn as you make out. He originally believed the UHI effect was important and, in quite a long thread on Parker's paper, changed his mind after apparently considering the issues and reading relevant papers, including those suggested by or written by Pielke Jr. And this was despite the best attempts of Steve McIntyre to derail discussions with inconsequential difficulties.

I guess I am "pimping" Mosher (what a disturbing idea) because he remains distrustful of scientist's motives, is sceptical of catastrophic AGW, and appears to have looked into the issues quite deeply from a AGW-sceptical viewpoint.

It's interesting to watch hard-line sceptics get bitter about traitors to their cause - seen it happen to Roy Spencer (when he disowned Miskolczi), Steve McIntyre (when he wouldn't back prosecuting Mann), and now Steve Mosher.

hunter,
You'd have to be more specific, particularly as I've not read his book.

I've never cared much for Mosher's arrogant style (SHOUTING etc. as if he's going to force everyone to his POV), and since I've been following CA since 2005, I think I know a bit more about him than you. His argument is still the error, if it exists, is in the data......UHI. What he completely ignores even after repeated attempts at pointing it out, it isn't all about UHI. Also, what papers did Pielke Jr. publish on UHI? I'll bet I could come up with a least a dozen papers in a few minutes (there are many more than that) highlighting problems with the SAT record without his name appearing on them.

And how do you know who is bitter about who? You are just babbling.

Now we have Gavin Schmidt jumping the CAGW ship on severe weather predictions. What's next, "nobody ever said AGW causes increases in climate extremes"? That's got to be causing some heartburn amongst the faithful.

Gavin Schmidt: there's no theory that extremes should rise in general

The idea that climate extremes are supposed to get larger is one of the most omni-present manifestations of the climate doomsday religion.

[julianb]

If you want a definitive history of the manipulations of the world wide temperature series I suggest reading the whole of the paper with the first part here:-

hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part1-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-181.php

You will never think the same about those "alarming " graphs again, it really demolishes the adjustments point by point. How you get 'believers' to read and absorb pages and pages of critique and come to a different conclusion is another matter though.

[steve]

hunter,

If you have not read his book then you are not really able to discuss Mosher's views or climategate from an informed perspective.
Why don't you get back on this after you are up to speed a bit instead of repeating crap from believers?

This thread was initially about what Steve Mosher said about the lack of bias in the creation of the temperature datasets..

Are you of the opininion that this is "crap from a believer" then?

I have some idea of Mosher's views on climate science in general, but I can hardly answer such a general question as "Are you also accepting of Mosher's critiques of cliamte science?". Be more specific!