|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 5, 2010 21:14:41 GMT
Isn't that an indictment on the part of the skeptic web community that you have only focused on stations with warming adjustments and not stations with cooling adjustments? And with your "somebody caught up" reference - why do you put the burden of refutation on others? Shouldn't the skeptics be critical of their own arguments and therefore have sought out adjustments that run counter to their hypothesis? Wouldn't an unbiased inquiry look at both types of adjustments, and further wouldn't a competent enquiry analyze the whole dataset rather than focusing on one or two case-examples that agree with the conclusion they seek (eg Darwin Zero)? I have for a long time thought that skeptic blogs are just trying to score points and are not interested in proper scientific analysis of these issues. Seemingly you are unaware what you have just admitted. You mean like "tricks" to solve the perplexing problem of what folks might think of tree ring data that doesn't track modern records? Yeah, I agree there are folks that have no credibility on both sides of the debate. But how many people would be aware of the impact of Yamal 061 if Steve McIntyre did not have his blog? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 5, 2010 22:49:55 GMT
I mean where have the skeptics pondered any stations with cooling adjustments? I bet you can show me hundreds of blogs posts concerning a single station with a warming adjustment. Can you show me just one post about a station that was adjusted cooler?
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 5, 2010 23:02:28 GMT
I mean where have the skeptics pondered any stations with cooling adjustments? I bet you can show me hundreds of blogs posts concerning a single station with a warming adjustment. Can you show me just one post about a station that was adjusted cooler? No need to prove our points for us, Socold. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 5, 2010 23:22:57 GMT
What is your point?
Why is it you can list 100 stations with warming adjustments but none with cooling adjustments?
You can name a station called Darwin Zero with a large unexplained warming adjustment, but not name a station with a large unexplained cooling adjustment?
Are you claiming no such cooling adjustment stations exist or that you are unaware that any exist?
Isn't there a burden on someone who claims all adjustments seem to be in the warming direction to show that they have figured that out from a fair sample and not a biased one?
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 6, 2010 0:06:05 GMT
I guess the point is what Twawki made:
"The thing with the adjustments is they are always done to show a warming - Darwin was a hilarious case in point"
Icefisher continues with: "The must be a hundred examples back just in the archives here of warming adjustments it would be nice if somebody caught up. . . .certainly would be curative to the credibility issue."
The bold part is revealing because it's passing the buck for establishing the credibility of the science to others. It implies that skeptics aren't interested in establishing credibility of the science where it's due themselves..
As to Twawki's claim, all someone has to do to falsify that is show a station that has a cooling adjustment, or a station rivalling Darwin but with a cooling adjustment. Conversely to prove it, all someone has to do is check the direction of the adjustments of all stations. Either should be pretty easy for anyone interested, especially for a group that has alledgedly already created an "archive" of "a hundred examples" of warming adjusted stations. Yet despite interest and means this group doesn't bother carrying out the obvious analysis to either prove or falsify the claim - thereby leaving the claim in limbo.
It's so easy and interest is so intense that I am sure some of the members of this group have in fact done the analysis. To explain why we haven't heard of it one sad possibility is that the members of the group found that the claim was falsified rather than proved, didn't like the answer so didn't report it. Effectively they omitted it from "the archive" so that "the archive" is forever stuck at step 1 where it contains nothing more than 100 warm adjusted stations as pretty examples of some imaginary fraud.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 6, 2010 0:15:57 GMT
Isn't there a burden on someone who claims all adjustments seem to be in the warming direction to show that they have figured that out from a fair sample and not a biased one? No! That should be true only if you are paid to produce an unbiased record, for example you are paid via public funds or by contract or you purport to have done that. If it was a requirement for any everyday schmo or even a tabloid to do that all it would do is serve to silence free speech. Free speech is the freedom to say what you want to say or believe despite what evidence you might have and it serves an important role in society. |
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Jun 7, 2010 11:11:41 GMT
Socold I normally don't respond to your posts because I found with time it didn't matter what I say you disregard it anyway as you do with most people on here who have a different view to you. If you want attention then be reasonable in debate. There is a huge amount of evidence - surfacestations.org for example to show the warming biases that are excluded, that UHI is not included, the upward adjustment of temps. You know all this and yet you act like none of it exists. Yes my point was a generalisation - to be more accurate I probably should have said most stations as I don't know about every station but none of this really gives credibility to your warming alarmism. I guess the point is what Twawki made: "The thing with the adjustments is they are always done to show a warming - Darwin was a hilarious case in point"Icefisher continues with: "The must be a hundred examples back just in the archives here of warming adjustments it would be nice if somebody caught up. . . .certainly would be curative to the credibility issue." The bold part is revealing because it's passing the buck for establishing the credibility of the science to others. It implies that skeptics aren't interested in establishing credibility of the science where it's due themselves.. As to Twawki's claim, all someone has to do to falsify that is show a station that has a cooling adjustment, or a station rivalling Darwin but with a cooling adjustment. Conversely to prove it, all someone has to do is check the direction of the adjustments of all stations. Either should be pretty easy for anyone interested, especially for a group that has alledgedly already created an "archive" of "a hundred examples" of warming adjusted stations. Yet despite interest and means this group doesn't bother carrying out the obvious analysis to either prove or falsify the claim - thereby leaving the claim in limbo. It's so easy and interest is so intense that I am sure some of the members of this group have in fact done the analysis. To explain why we haven't heard of it one sad possibility is that the members of the group found that the claim was falsified rather than proved, didn't like the answer so didn't report it. Effectively they omitted it from "the archive" so that "the archive" is forever stuck at step 1 where it contains nothing more than 100 warm adjusted stations as pretty examples of some imaginary fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2010 19:58:19 GMT
"There is a huge amount of evidence - surfacestations.org for example to show the warming biases that are excluded, that UHI is not included, the upward adjustment of temps. You know all this and yet you act like none of it exists."
Actual analysis of the temperature station data found that the adjustments in GHCN are fairly much equal between warming and cooling and that instances like Darwin Zero have opposite numbers.
That's why what you cite at surfacestations.org doesn't constitute evidence. It's merely data. Data that requires analysis to demonstrate any point. Data without analysis is just data and any conclusions drawn from it without analysis are premature and untrustworthy.
For example certain sources claimed that station dropoff at higher latitudes resulted in a warm bias. They didn't base that off any analysis, just the data. They saw the dropoff in the data and I guess they just applied common sense that less stations in cold areas would cause a warming trend. So confident were they I guess that they didn't bother doing any analysis to make sure and just blurted out the claims in public. When people subsequently did the analysis after the claims had already been aired, it turned out the claims were wrong. The assumption using common sense was incorrect. That's why analysis is necessary for the credibility of any claim. Common sense alone (another eg, the idea that more measurements at airports must cause a warming bias) is not good enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 7, 2010 20:13:07 GMT
Actual analysis of the temperature station data found that the adjustments in GHCN are fairly much equal between warming and cooling and that instances like Darwin Zero have opposite numbers. That's why what you cite at surfacestations.org doesn't constitute evidence. It's merely data. Data that requires analysis to demonstrate any point. Data without analysis is just data and any conclusions drawn from it without analysis are premature and untrustworthy. Then no doubt you can provide us with both the data and analysis for the claim that positive and negative adjustments are "fairly equal" whatever that means. That's why analysis is necessary for the credibility of any claim. Common sense alone (another eg, the idea that more measurements at airports must cause a warming bias) is not good enough. Boy I couldn't agree more on that but as it is when it comes to data and analysis the score is something vs zip/nada but I am sure you will be remedying that immediately as soon as you link us to the analysis you looked at. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 7, 2010 21:28:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 7, 2010 22:43:52 GMT
Before I pursue this any further let me say I don't think anybody has actually tried to intentionally falsify the temperature record. However, that said the analysis you produced does not rule that out and the person doing the analysis says so himself. Having done forensic work, the easy stuff to uncover is the "stupid" fraud. The analysis you provided rules that out to some degree of certainty except for dumb luck stupid fraud. Like I said I have done forensic work and you don't get prosecutions on smart fraud with a back of the napkin analysis as the smart perpetrator makes sure of that. Ultimately this gets around to the gridding issue (and the lack of a gridding analysis is actually pointed out in your link). Gridding adds no data to the dataset and the only reason it is done is to vary the weight various stations receive in calculating gross warming. This can have the benefit of filtering out regional variances where relatively more stations exist. . . .a necessary step in the view of a warmist where most of the stations are in the US and the US stations show no warming since the 1930's. That fact alone is of concern because why would an entire continent experience no warming in the presence of "catastrophic global warming"? At this point it should be clear how if you were going to commit fraud how you would do it assuming you are a smart guy and you don't want to get caught by a guy with a napkin and a pencil. Now I have no idea why anybody would want to do that so thats why I think its improbable that somebody did it with precise intent. But you see it done all the time by investors who simply believe an investment is good and they start looking for stuff that is making it look bad and they eliminate that stuff whereever they can find any justification for eliminating it. Subconsciously they may not even be aware that they are adjusting stuff using a nonrandom selection process. This sort of stuff is real common in QC departments that don't carefully plan out their QC work. And this leads us to the slop and lack of documentation you see in academia which looks a lot like a bad QC department. In fact, when some joe schmoe skeptic grabs some adjusted stations he probably should find just as easily why the data was adjusted. The fact he doesn't find that leads to the suspicion the data may be tampered with in a nonrandom or fraudulent manner. I do know that an auditor when he finds no documentation the cash register starts ringing on the client to start putting it back together in a comprehensible way, keeping in mind again the gridded dataset is only as good as the practices that create it. It brings zero new data all it brings is the experience and judgment of the person doing the gridding and these days that isn't making anybody feel comfortable. And of course you have that climategate program with the fudgefactor. Using a program to test adjustments is how a crafty guy operates. Remove a station and see how it affects the grid and adjust up the temperature on one that has little effect and just down the temperatures on the ones that have a lot of effect. That way you avoid getting caught with the simplistic analysis. But the truth is you do the same thing subconsciously when you select stuff based upon your biases just considerably less flagrantly though. So why not bring us a gridding analysis with a flat substitution of the original data? That should be a piece of cake for Gavin and bring this discussion to a close. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 7, 2010 22:59:37 GMT
socold, there is no analysis of the quality of the data. What is so difficult about understanding that? All they are doing is replicating. How about Tamino, Zeke & co. reach into their tall hats and justify GISS deleting SST data and simply replacing and extrapolating with land data? Bob Tisdale posted at WUWT concerning this odd practice and the GISS apologists jumped in and had no defense once Tisdale pinned their ears back with the facts. GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface Temperature Data ![]() i48.tinypic.com/33adj86.jpg[/img]  GISS DELETES SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE DATA IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE, TOO
   Now the money graph. ZERO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAND and SST at the poles.  And there it is in all it's nakedness. No wiggling out of this one is there? As you continually whine about not finding stations with a cooling bias, why is it that Tamino, Zeke and friends couldn't find this with their combined skills? In fact, they couldn't find one thing wrong with GISS that may be creating a warm bias in their records. Amazing! Oh, and BTW, it has already been shown conclusively that GISS adjusts data 55/45 in favor of warming, which includes adjusting the past down while simultaneously adjusting the present up. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 8, 2010 8:00:59 GMT
As you continually whine about not finding stations with a cooling bias, why is it that Tamino, Zeke and friends couldn't find this with their combined skills? In fact, they couldn't find one thing wrong with GISS that may be creating a warm bias in their records. Amazing!
That's because any warm bias is so small it's virtually undetectable. since you're so convinced thst there is one can you tell us what it is. What is the warming bias in the GISS global trend. You come up with comparisons between GISS and Hadcrut (Hadcrut has suddenly become incredibly reliable of late - can't think why) but don't show how this affects the long term trend. You don't even say if GISS/Hadcrut are wrong/right.
Who is "more right"?
Is it Hadcrut who effectively assume that the arctic has warmed at a similar rate to the rest of the world.
Or is it GISS who are measuring a higher rate of warming in the arctic - as are UAH . There is also the increased rate of melt in recent years so there are other lines of evidence which tend to suggest GISS might be closer to the mark.
In any case you are worrying unneccessarily. You, and others on on this blog, are confident of a downturn in temperatures in the coming decades which will undoubtedly have a disproportionate effect on the arctic (similar to that seen in the GISS record 1940-1970) so the GISS trend is llikely to fall faster than the others.
I've just checked the anomalies for the last 4 months in the GISS record and compared them with UAH anomalies. To make a fair comparison I've used a common base period (1979-1998) for both sets of anomalies. The numbers are:
UAH GISS
Jan 0.64 0.41
Feb 0.61 0.43
Mar 0.66 0.54
Apr 0.50 0.49
So, apart from April where the anomalies are very similar, UAH has been much warmer relative to GISS - and that's even after the substantial cooling adjustment in the UAH record.
It's a case of swings and roundabouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 8, 2010 19:21:26 GMT
socold, there is no analysis of the quality of the data. What is so difficult about understanding that? All they are doing is replicating. Tamino didn't use GISTEMP or GHCN adjustments. That was the entire point of seeing what you get without those adjustments - so it isn't replication. Since then a number of people have done the same analysis to check those initial results and they too have reproduced the same result:  The results are not all identical, but you wouldn't expect that given they used different methods to handle combining multiple station records and homogenization. But the results are close enough that the result is shown to be robust across methodologies and implementation. The claim was that the official global surface record shape as captured by GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC was significantly wrong because the authors, such as Hansen and Jones had introduced false warming through adjustments. This claim is now proven false. The shape is not a consequence of anything Hansen or Jones have adjusted. The shape exists even if you don't adjust at all. Skeptics are now falling back, ceding ground to this fact ever so silently and going after GHCN raw. Of course that has nothing to do with Hansen or Jones. So this whole charade we've been witness to for years that Hansen and Jones had adjusted the recent warming into being is false. Skeptics could have produced their own global temperature record years ago to settle this one way or another. You tell me why they didn't bother and instead posted irrelevancies like "Darwin Zero" and left it to warmists to attempt the analysis. If you don't like GISTEMP's arctic extrapolation then use HadCRUT3 or any of the other surface records which don't use GISTEMP's arctic extrapolation. Nothing rests on GISTEMP being right as if the others are wrong. There's more difference in those blog-produced results above than GISTEMP's arctic extrapolation causes and all differences mentioned are so small as to be irrelevant to repurcussions of global warming. They have. See the link I posted with the histogram - that shows plenty of stations with cooling biases. They just haven't cherrypicked out examples and posted ignorant "I can't imagine how this could happen...fraud *wink* *wink*" posts. Here's one specific example with a larger cooling adjustment than the Darwin Zero warming adjustment:  I have no idea why the Smokey Falls station in Canada was adjusted down from a warming trend of 0.38C/decade into a cooling trend of 0.32C/decade. I guess that's evidence that the surface records are being adjusted downwards and actual warming in the real world must be greater? That would be WUWT level of thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 8, 2010 22:40:14 GMT
socold, there is no analysis of the quality of the data. What is so difficult about understanding that? All they are doing is replicating. Tamino didn't use GISTEMP or GHCN adjustments. That was the entire point of seeing what you get without those adjustments - so it isn't replication. Since then a number of people have done the same analysis to check those initial results and they too have reproduced the same result: The results are not all identical, but you wouldn't expect that given they used different methods to handle combining multiple station records and homogenization. But the results are close enough that the result is shown to be robust across methodologies and implementation. The claim was that the official global surface record shape as captured by GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC was significantly wrong because the authors, such as Hansen and Jones had introduced false warming through adjustments. This claim is now proven false. The shape is not a consequence of anything Hansen or Jones have adjusted. The shape exists even if you don't adjust at all. Skeptics are now falling back, ceding ground to this fact ever so silently and going after GHCN raw. Of course that has nothing to do with Hansen or Jones. So this whole charade we've been witness to for years that Hansen and Jones had adjusted the recent warming into being is false. Skeptics could have produced their own global temperature record years ago to settle this one way or another. You tell me why they didn't bother and instead posted irrelevancies like "Darwin Zero" and left it to warmists to attempt the analysis. If you don't like GISTEMP's arctic extrapolation then use HadCRUT3 or any of the other surface records which don't use GISTEMP's arctic extrapolation. Nothing rests on GISTEMP being right as if the others are wrong. There's more difference in those blog-produced results above than GISTEMP's arctic extrapolation causes and all differences mentioned are so small as to be irrelevant to repurcussions of global warming. They have. See the link I posted with the histogram - that shows plenty of stations with cooling biases. They just haven't cherrypicked out examples and posted ignorant "I can't imagine how this could happen...fraud *wink* *wink*" posts. Here's one specific example with a larger cooling adjustment than the Darwin Zero warming adjustment: I have no idea why the Smokey Falls station in Canada was adjusted down from a warming trend of 0.38C/decade into a cooling trend of 0.32C/decade. I guess that's evidence that the surface records are being adjusted downwards and actual warming in the real world must be greater? That would be WUWT level of thinking. So you agree, the surface station network is unreliable. Thanks for making the case. We can do this all day, but would you like to bet who will end up with the biggest ammunition dump? GISS: Warmest March ever in Finland |
|
