|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 6, 2015 0:33:27 GMT
While being mostly in agreement I think its fair for the other side to note that the historical data collection was set up for an entirely different purpose than what it is currently being put to. Anthony Watts has gone on about this for years and put a huge internet volunteer group together to examine some of the problems surrounding what the data is currently being used for. Adjusting the data is not wrong in this regard of ensuring consistency among weather stations. The data was collected originally with no regard to the use of "averaging" between weather stations but entirely for the sake of consistency in reporting from a specific weather station. Where I think the problem is in is in managing the task so that each weather station is treated the same in a manner specifically designed to accurately represent the objective. Instead, like all academic and piecemeal work its done inconsistently and nobody knows if what is being done is for an identical objective. Further due to the nature of funding for this work its more than likely what is being adjusted is biased going out the door. We have graphically seen how the main guy in all this Dr. Phil (the dog ate my raw data) Jones worked to essentially deceive the IPCC process as to the strength of information about historical warming. No question he did the same sort of questionable manipulation with the historical data sets that in whole or in part underlie every global surface record in the world. thats true because only Phil Jones and his group are the only people to compile datasets of considerable portions of the globe over considerable periods of time, up until sometime in the past 30 or 40 years, a fact that has huge ramifications as to how much warming we have really experienced since say the late 1930's and early 1940's. There is no question of the likelihood of in inappropriate adjustments because he has defended the "Hide the Decline" trick as a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do. Of course he got demoted over it, as all the agencies scrambled to deny any significance of it, but heck we probably should not pay any attention to that! So my bottom line is yes some adjustments are warranted, but the original datasets should be archived and all methodologies and computer processing documented and archived as well. And at some point somebody should audit not just the recomplilation of the adjusted data as was done in the Best reconstruction but go back and actually audit (in the professional sense of the term) all the adjustment processes for consistency and a lack of bias and the reconstruction. However that might not be possible considering the likelihood all the raw data and adjustment methodologies are not properly archived. No data set is perfect ... never has been and likely never will be ... people change, methods and instrumentation change, places change. There's nothing wrong with categorizing stations and their data sets as to quality, limitations or anything else. There is no problem with adjusting data for specific purposes such as, as you state, ensuring consistency among weather stations. The problem lies in replacing original, historical data with adjustments of ANY kind. The original data, whatever their warts, should always be available for verification or use ... at the user's discretion. The old adage that ... "figures don't lie, but liars figure" will always be with us. While "liar" is a harsh term ... how is one to figure out who the "fibbers" are without the original figures? Or ... was that the whole point? NOAA used to have a stellar reputation ... but we are left to question either their competence or their honesty. Particularly when I see data like this for two locations just 50 miles apart ... on the Official data base? I suppose nothing is impossible. Do you think that they are just incompetent?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 6, 2015 0:42:30 GMT
"Particularly when I see data like this for two locations just 50 miles apart ... on the Official data base? I suppose nothing is impossible. Do you think that they are just incompetent?"
Let's be kind.....and just declare them incompetent.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 6, 2015 1:29:37 GMT
Think of this a different way. if those data sets are valid and only 50 miles apart and lets say this is the case a lot, then reducing the number of stations selected can generate a rapid temperature lift or drop.
Big opportunity for a confirmational bias to accelerate the outcome. If the default position were to be reasoned as "a falling trend is data corruption". Thus needs to be deleted, you can soon go from 5000 sites averaged with a slow wiggle rise look to a hockey stick but only 1000 verified sites. Mann probably stitched many data set permutations together to achieve his very impressive doomsday outcome.
The concept of a scientist considering twitter to be a forum virtually eliminates him from the science community. Twitter is virtually the opposite of science. it lives in the unreasoned emotion.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 9, 2015 22:28:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 10, 2015 2:30:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2015 16:35:08 GMT
missouriboy: I honestly don't think you can. Harold's paper record did not match the NCDC record, and they are suppose to be the "gate keeper". I think they are the gate keeper, but only of the current version of the gate. Pretty sad thing in reality...... Sad, yes ... but, if true ... then in my view, criminal. To take the aggregate work of five (or more) generations of human beings and desecrate it? In reality, would these guys be any better than the book burners of the Nazi party? The concept is very much the same. The elimination of any inconvenient data? would these guys be any better than the book burners of the Nazi party?Or those that sacked the library of Alexandria? Or the ISIS idiots destroying historic temples? No I think NCDC are just the same - the book burning NAZIs, Caesars troops the ISIS terrorists all have a single minded view that they are right and all others are wrong and destroying things that can be used to show an opposing view is therefore correct. Group think taken to its extreme. I would not like to have their legacy
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Mar 17, 2015 22:13:07 GMT
Spot the data-set with the "hockey stick" adjustments - all data-set plotted with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) series. Is it A: the satellite RSS lower troposphere global mean: Is it B: the satellite UAH lower troposphere global mean: Or, is it C: the UK Met Office's HADCRUT4:
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 17, 2015 22:46:29 GMT
Might i HUMBLY suggest that they change the name to HADCRUD4?
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 18, 2015 20:12:03 GMT
Thanks for that Cutty. As you would expect, GISTEMP doesn't compare well to sections across the North American Grain Belt either. I'm amazed that someone hasn't hired these boys to 'disappear' the budget deficit!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 18, 2015 21:24:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 19, 2015 19:25:53 GMT
Fortunately, the GISTEMP web site contains US temperature data by month. We can see how summer and winter temperatures varied from the 1951-80 normal. This graph displays deviations from the 5-year seasonal mean. Note that the 1930s summer temps are JUST A TAD higher than the latest summer temps. Perhaps too many people complained. But ... note how warm the winter temperatures have been lately in comparison to the 30s. Now, I know that the Great Plains do not represent the entire US, but the 1930s temperature extremes, both summer AND winter, covered a large swath of the central US between the Canadian and Mexican borders ... roughly 25%(?) of the country. Perhaps that is low based on web map at bottom. Assuming a reasonable distribution of weather stations, one would expect some significant effect on the US results. SO ... HOW WARM WERE THE 30s, BOTH SUMMER AND WINTER? Well, between longitudes 92-96 W and latitudes 38-44 N, you can see for yourselves. Now, note the winter temperature deviations. How is it that this section of the Midwest tracks well with the US in recent years (perhaps 1 degree lower), but in the 30s it was 2 to 3 degrees lower? Not to mention that 30s winter temps were ALSO higher than their recent counterparts. Summer temps in the 30s appear to average 1.5 degrees higher than GISTEMP. And need I even mention the relationship shift since about 2000 ... winter temps maybe 1 degree below the US, but summer temps maybe 1 degree warmer? Now, I know 'the boys' don't answer to me ... but in the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo ... "Someone got some splaining to do!" Next post for the difference graph.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 19, 2015 19:34:19 GMT
YOU DON'T NEED A WEATHERMAN TO TELL YOU WHICH WAY THE WIND IS BLOWING! (Bob Dylan) You could ride that winter slope all the way to today! Wax up your skis for the Statistical Downhill!
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Apr 10, 2015 5:02:08 GMT
Paul Home blogs: "Cooling The Past In Holland" Before GHCN tampering: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600003&dt=1&ds=1De Bilt is the only long running temperature station in the Netherlands used by GISS. (Maastricht Airport only goes back to 1991). In 2011, using the GHCN V2 database, GISS showed the raw temperature record as per the graph above, We can see the all too familiar pattern of warm years in the 1930’s and 40’s, followed by a much colder interval, and then a recovery since the 1980’s. GHCN decided that this could obviously not be right, and adjusted it to this: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=633062600000&dt=1&ds=12Altogether, temperatures prior to 1950 have been adjusted down by as much as 1C. Now, of course, it may be possible that the original temperature record was in error. But the funny thing is that similar adjustments have been made at every other nearby station, with records prior to 1950. (Aachen and Lille have no data between 1900 and the 1990’s). See entire blog: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/cooling-the-past-in-holland/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Apr 22, 2015 4:18:05 GMT
This was originally posted on thread "There is still no global warming science" as a reply to Sigudur's posted article: mashable.com/2015/04/15/march-warmest-month-global-warming/it seems it should be included on this thread. Thank you for that Sig! Now let's evaluate it. I note that their map shows Great Plains' March temperatures ranging from 1 to 4 degrees C above the 1951-80 Normal. Strange that they should choose such an OLD normal. Hint ... it's the coldest of the 30-year March ranges they could have chosen ... at least in the grain belt. Given the headline ... hottest March on record for the globe ... almost guaranteed to be in the top five for the land record, it's only fair to see how it stacks up. So ... I took the station records for my two longitudinal cross sections for the Great Plains and ranked the March 2015 temperatures across the time series. I expected to get scorched but I didn't even get warm . Mar. 2015 Rank Time Period Temp C Columbia, MO 7.72 40 1890-2015 Kirksville. MO 5.89 41 1895-2015 Ottumwa, IA 4.44 54 1894-2015 Waterloo, IA 1.94 55 1895-2015 Rochester, MN 0.28 32 1909-2015 Duluth,MN -0.78 8 1948-2015 Mar., 2015 Rank Time Period Temp C Emporia, KS 8.67 30 1893-2015 Manhattan, KS 7.83 39 1897-2015 Lincoln, NE 6.28 25 1903-2015 Sioux City, IA 5.56 17 1905-2015 Sioux Falls, SD 3.56 13 1932-2015 Fargo, ND 0.83 13 1900-2015 Grand Forks, ND -0.61 20 1895-2015 Sure is easy to 'fix' a record these days. No doubt April will be a record too!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 22, 2015 11:51:43 GMT
The satellite measurements must really be off eh?
|
|