Are Land Station Temperature Data Accurate?

[IanC]

We have argued this point repeatedly, with the alarmist side saying that everyone should just cede to the authority of the scientists making up the data tables.

Climategate showed that HADCRU vigorously adjusted the data and when they were asked to produce the raw data they said they had thrown it away.

The Y2K bug fiasco showed that NASA GISS continuously adjusts the data to the point that outside studies using the GISS data set have to define which date of data they used in order for the findings to make sense.

While many have called for an audit of temperature data, New Zealand actually forced their climate study organization to answer the tough questions about raw data and the adjustments made and the reasoning behind the adjustments. After a year of squirming and dodging questions the NIWA just gave up!

“But we note that, after 12 months of futile attempts to persuade the public, misleading answers to questions in the Parliament from ACT and reluctant but gradual capitulation from NIWA, their relentless defence of the old temperature series has simply evaporated. They’ve finally given in, but without our efforts the faulty graph would still be there.”
Mr Treadgold described the replacement as a full exoneration of the criticism levelled at the Coalition by NIWA, saying: “All we ever asked for were the adjustments and the reasons for them. The discourteous reproaches and misleading academic references we received from them were surprising. For them finally to agree with us, throw away the series and recreate it is a complete vindication for us.”

Climate Science Coalition Vindicated | Scoop News

turned into this-

I wonder what will happen when people decide to find out what is going on with North American data?

 

[Old Rocks]

Nov. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Take a look at the running mean.

 

[asterism]

We have argued this point repeatedly, with the alarmist side saying that everyone should just cede to the authority of the scientists making up the data tables.

Climategate showed that HADCRU vigorously adjusted the data and when they were asked to produce the raw data they said they had thrown it away.

The Y2K bug fiasco showed that NASA GISS continuously adjusts the data to the point that outside studies using the GISS data set have to define which date of data they used in order for the findings to make sense.

While many have called for an audit of temperature data, New Zealand actually forced their climate study organization to answer the tough questions about raw data and the adjustments made and the reasoning behind the adjustments. After a year of squirming and dodging questions the NIWA just gave up!

“But we note that, after 12 months of futile attempts to persuade the public, misleading answers to questions in the Parliament from ACT and reluctant but gradual capitulation from NIWA, their relentless defence of the old temperature series has simply evaporated. They’ve finally given in, but without our efforts the faulty graph would still be there.”
Mr Treadgold described the replacement as a full exoneration of the criticism levelled at the Coalition by NIWA, saying: “All we ever asked for were the adjustments and the reasons for them. The discourteous reproaches and misleading academic references we received from them were surprising. For them finally to agree with us, throw away the series and recreate it is a complete vindication for us.”

Climate Science Coalition Vindicated | Scoop News

turned into this-

I wonder what will happen when people decide to find out what is going on with North American data?

Home

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Adjusting the data, it's how "ManMade" gets into the phrase "ManMade Global Warming"

Priceless

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nov. 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.38 deg. C Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Take a look at the running mean.

Take a look at how stupid you are

 

[Big Fitz]

Home

NASA has recently been caught deliberately shutting down northern, rural surface stations in favor of making more southern urban (heat island and read out compromised) stations.

No fucking wonder we're getting bad data from the wizards of smurt.

 

[IanC]

Thursday, January 14, 2010http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-version-of-climategate-coming.html
US Version of Climategate Coming?

Will NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) join the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the Climategate mess? Could be!

The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990's were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!

It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).

In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a "nice tidy story". In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?

While I am doubtful that it will ever happen, I sure would like to see the results of an independent audit of american temperature data and the 'adjustments' that have been tacked on in the last few decades.

edit- the temporary drop for 1998 in the middle of the graph was caused by a talented amateur who discovered a Y2K bug that went undiscovered until 2006. NASA's immediate fix made headlines for changing the order of america's hottest years. NASA's reversal of those changes after a few months did not.

 

[mdn2000]

How many physical points on earth can the temperature be read and how many points are uses.

I would guess for every billion points that data can be read only one point is used. I say there are trillions points of data not being utilized.

 

[daveman]

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada.

Yet as American researchers Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, point out in a study published on the website of the Science and Public Policy Institute, NOAA uses “just one thermometer [for measuring] everything north of latitude 65 degrees.”

--

They say NOAA collects no temperature data at all from Bolivia -- a high-altitude, landlocked country -- but instead “interpolates” or assigns temperature values for that country based on data from “nearby” temperature stations located at lower elevations in Peru, or in the Amazon basin.

The result, they say, is a warmer-than-truthful global temperature record.

“NOAA . . . systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler,” the authors say. “The thermometers in a sense, marched towards the tropics, the sea, and to airport tarmacs.”​

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. If AGW scientists were gamblers, they wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any Vegas casino.

 

[asterism]

Thursday, January 14, 2010The Virtual Philosophy Club: US Version of Climategate Coming?
US Version of Climategate Coming?

Will NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) join the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the Climategate mess? Could be!

The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990's were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!

It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).

In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a "nice tidy story". In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?

While I am doubtful that it will ever happen, I sure would like to see the results of an independent audit of american temperature data and the 'adjustments' that have been tacked on in the last few decades.

edit- the temporary drop for 1998 in the middle of the graph was caused by a talented amateur who discovered a Y2K bug that went undiscovered until 2006. NASA's immediate fix made headlines for changing the order of america's hottest years. NASA's reversal of those changes after a few months did not.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason for so much disparity in the data is the lack of actual statistical procedures in the statistical practices. It's glaringly obvious that none of these scientists ever conducted a regression analysis on their data to catch things like this.

The funny part is that their hubris gets the best of them and their ignorance is proven.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Thursday, January 14, 2010The Virtual Philosophy Club: US Version of Climategate Coming?
US Version of Climategate Coming?

Will NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) join the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the Climategate mess? Could be!

The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990's were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!

It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).

In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a "nice tidy story". In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?

While I am doubtful that it will ever happen, I sure would like to see the results of an independent audit of american temperature data and the 'adjustments' that have been tacked on in the last few decades.

edit- the temporary drop for 1998 in the middle of the graph was caused by a talented amateur who discovered a Y2K bug that went undiscovered until 2006. NASA's immediate fix made headlines for changing the order of america's hottest years. NASA's reversal of those changes after a few months did not.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason for so much disparity in the data is the lack of actual statistical procedures in the statistical practices. It's glaringly obvious that none of these scientists ever conducted a regression analysis on their data to catch things like this.

The funny part is that their hubris gets the best of them and their ignorance is proven.

Hubris and ignorance? Or, intentional deceit?

 

[asterism]

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. If AGW scientists were gamblers, they wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any Vegas casino.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

-- Hanlon

As indicated in the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file, there are many examples of just plain incompetence by the original programmer. It can easily explain why they dug in their heels, if nothing else because they just don't understand data analysis.

 

[asterism]

While I am doubtful that it will ever happen, I sure would like to see the results of an independent audit of american temperature data and the 'adjustments' that have been tacked on in the last few decades.

edit- the temporary drop for 1998 in the middle of the graph was caused by a talented amateur who discovered a Y2K bug that went undiscovered until 2006. NASA's immediate fix made headlines for changing the order of america's hottest years. NASA's reversal of those changes after a few months did not.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason for so much disparity in the data is the lack of actual statistical procedures in the statistical practices. It's glaringly obvious that none of these scientists ever conducted a regression analysis on their data to catch things like this.

The funny part is that their hubris gets the best of them and their ignorance is proven.

Hubris and ignorance? Or, intentional deceit?

Arrogance fueled by ignorance which then led to hubris and then intentional deceit. Power corrupts.

 

[westwall]

Thursday, January 14, 2010The Virtual Philosophy Club: US Version of Climategate Coming?
US Version of Climategate Coming?

Will NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) join the UK Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the Climategate mess? Could be!

The UK CRU version of Climategate centered around whether the 1990's were warmer than any time in the past 1000 years. The US GISS version could be about whether 1998 was warmer than 1934!

It seems the temperature readings were adjusted six times after analysis in July 1999 indicated that the temperature anomaly for 1934 was nearly 60% higher than for 1998. See the above graphic for how GISS adjusted 1934 down and 1998 up until 1998 was warmer than 1934 (the January 2007 analysis) or at least virtually indistinguishable (the March and August 2007 analyses).

In the UK CRU case, the Medieval Warm Period vanished to present a "nice tidy story". In the US GISS case, a nearly 60% temperature anomaly difference vanished to show that 1998 was as warm as 1934! Are these guys serious scientists or just skilled magicians?

While I am doubtful that it will ever happen, I sure would like to see the results of an independent audit of american temperature data and the 'adjustments' that have been tacked on in the last few decades.

edit- the temporary drop for 1998 in the middle of the graph was caused by a talented amateur who discovered a Y2K bug that went undiscovered until 2006. NASA's immediate fix made headlines for changing the order of america's hottest years. NASA's reversal of those changes after a few months did not.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason for so much disparity in the data is the lack of actual statistical procedures in the statistical practices. It's glaringly obvious that none of these scientists ever conducted a regression analysis on their data to catch things like this.

The funny part is that their hubris gets the best of them and their ignorance is proven.

You are being far to kind. Incompetence went out the door years ago. This is systemic, calculated fraud.

 

[westwall]

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. If AGW scientists were gamblers, they wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any Vegas casino.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

-- Hanlon

As indicated in the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file, there are many examples of just plain incompetence by the original programmer. It can easily explain why they dug in their heels, if nothing else because they just don't understand data analysis.

That explains some of it for sure. However, when they go in and alter the existing temperature records from over 50 years ago to reinforce their narrative.....that's no longer incompetence, that's criminal.

 

[asterism]

While I am doubtful that it will ever happen, I sure would like to see the results of an independent audit of american temperature data and the 'adjustments' that have been tacked on in the last few decades.

edit- the temporary drop for 1998 in the middle of the graph was caused by a talented amateur who discovered a Y2K bug that went undiscovered until 2006. NASA's immediate fix made headlines for changing the order of america's hottest years. NASA's reversal of those changes after a few months did not.

I've come to the conclusion that the reason for so much disparity in the data is the lack of actual statistical procedures in the statistical practices. It's glaringly obvious that none of these scientists ever conducted a regression analysis on their data to catch things like this.

The funny part is that their hubris gets the best of them and their ignorance is proven.

You are being far to kind. Incompetence went out the door years ago. This is systemic, calculated fraud.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. If AGW scientists were gamblers, they wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any Vegas casino.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

-- Hanlon

As indicated in the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file, there are many examples of just plain incompetence by the original programmer. It can easily explain why they dug in their heels, if nothing else because they just don't understand data analysis.

That explains some of it for sure. However, when they go in and alter the existing temperature records from over 50 years ago to reinforce their narrative.....that's no longer incompetence, that's criminal.

Ah! I see your point. Yes, there are certainly frauds in this and all fields of study. However, the bulk of the scientific conclusions in Climatology are based on faulty analysis of data. In my opinion the original papers published were wrong due to ignorance. However, that does not discount the magnitude of fraud perpetrated by the few.

I am also left rolling on the floor laughing when a geologist or a physicist takes my criticism of his opinion based on the incorrect analysis of the data personally and tries the appeal to authority and claims I just don't know enough about this field to have any credibility. So just remember folks, hard science practitioners don't find criticisms of statistics done by trained statisticians to be valid.

 

[daveman]

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. If AGW scientists were gamblers, they wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any Vegas casino.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

-- Hanlon

As indicated in the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file, there are many examples of just plain incompetence by the original programmer. It can easily explain why they dug in their heels, if nothing else because they just don't understand data analysis.

Oh, I agree with Hanlon's Razor. Yet now that the Climategate emails have been revealed, and the whitewashed "investigation" of same by the same people who wrote the emails, further support of AGW can't be attributed solely to stupidity.

 

[westwall]

It's easy to win if you stack the deck. If AGW scientists were gamblers, they wouldn't be allowed to set foot in any Vegas casino.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

-- Hanlon

As indicated in the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file, there are many examples of just plain incompetence by the original programmer. It can easily explain why they dug in their heels, if nothing else because they just don't understand data analysis.

Oh, I agree with Hanlon's Razor. Yet now that the Climategate emails have been revealed, and the whitewashed "investigation" of same by the same people who wrote the emails, further support of AGW can't be attributed solely to stupidity.

Exactly!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

support of AGW can't be attributed solely to stupidity.

This is where we disagree -- I don't think stupidity was ever involved. They knew exactly what they were doing from day one. It's simple:

1.) Set in concrete your preordained conclusion.

2.) Ignore any facts that don't support the conclusion, if those facts cannot be manipulated so that they appear to support the conclusion. Make up "facts" and "data" out of thin air, even.

3.) Never change the conclusion. Cling to it, never let them see you sweat. Vigorously defend all data, no matter how corrupt, that supports the conclusion. Dismiss and/or marginalize all naysayers. Destroy them financially if necessary. Hell, KILL them if necessary.

That's all it is.

 

[westwall]

support of AGW can't be attributed solely to stupidity.

This is where we disagree -- I don't think stupidity was ever involved. They knew exactly what they were doing from day one. It's simple:

1.) Set in concrete your preordained conclusion.

2.) Ignore any facts that don't support the conclusion, if those facts cannot be manipulated so that they appear to support the conclusion. Make up "facts" and "data" out of thin air, even.

3.) Never change the conclusion. Cling to it, never let them see you sweat. Vigorously defend all data, no matter how corrupt, that supports the conclusion. Dismiss and/or marginalize all naysayers. Destroy them financially if necessary. Hell, KILL them if necessary.

That's all it is.

For the prime movers I agree with you. But there are a lot of just very poor inept scientists out there too.