For Crickham- Critique of GISS Urbanization Adjustments

[IanC]

That issue is a fine illustration of how assuming a vast conspiracy almost always makes the assumer end up looking stupid.

In 2013, at a weather station in Luling, Texas, a lawnmower or weed whacker damaged a data cable, causing temperature readings to suddenly plunge.

The processing algorithms notice if any station suddenly spikes very high or very low compared to neighboring stations, and corrects for such obviously bad data.

And that would be the sum total of the "conspiracy" here, a damaged cable. Goddard and pals are getting increasingly desperate and crazy in regards to what they define as a conspiracy. Ian, if you keep trusting them, you'll keep getting embarrassed.

I finally had some time to look into Luling. it doesnt seem to match up with your explanation.

here is the BEST record, with scalpel cuts-

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Figures/26477-TAVG-Alignment.pdf

found an image-

it looks like there was quite a drop in 2011, hence a break was made.

what did the metadata say? -

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/homr/#ncdcstnid=20024457&tab=MISC

hmmmmmm......

equipment change in late 2010, refinement of GPS location in early 2011. BEST flagged this as a station move although it wasnt.

the caretaker of a temp station a few miles away says he noticed Luling was reading low so he came and calibrated it.

mesoman PERMALINK
June 27, 2014 3:38 pm
There was an equipment issue with the Luling MMTS. For 2013, and perhaps earlier, it was reading much colder than a well-sited station 5 miles away (in many instances, high temperature differences on sunny, well-mixed days were 8-12 degrees). The system was repaired and sensor replaced in early 2014 and the cold bias disappeared. NCDC was made aware of the problem and these adjustments may have been made in response to that, at least for 2013.

when asked why there was no record of this-

mesoman PERMALINK
June 28, 2014 12:17 pm
Repairs are only noted on an inspection report for management use, which isn’t public. Unfortunately, there’s no way for others to see what actions are taken at a COOP station unless equipment is moved or replaced, which causes the B-44 to be updated (the notes visible on NCDC come from the comments section of the B-44).

so mamooth, if you want to believe it was a weedwacker in 2013, that is your opinion. I think it was the equipment update in Nov 2010 which appears to be supported by the record. it is likely that we are both wrong.

 

[IanC]

I suggest people read Homewood's article(s) on Luling-
Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT


it would be one thing if NOAA was only 'correcting' recent records, but it isnt

(Again, note that eleven out of twelve months are estimated for 1934, yet the State Climatological Report indicates there is data for every month. (See page 101 of the report).

which prompted a commenter to notice that 1934 wasnt the only year with a lot of 'estimated' data for Luling

A C Osborn PERMALINK
June 27, 2014 3:02 pm
Paul, did you notice in the USHCN file for Luling that there were other batches of records with E against them?
1943-45 (Wartime)
1950-52
1973-74
1978-81

even Watts has done an about face, and is calling for an investigation, which prompted this email-

I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.

They are taking this seriously, they have to the as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site

From:John Nielsen-Gammon
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 9:27 AM
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: USHCN station at Luling Texas

Anthony -

I just did a check of all Texas USHCN stations. Thirteen had estimates in place of apparently good data.

410174 Estimated May 2008 thru June 2009

410498 Estimated since Oct 2011

410639 Estimated since July 2012 (exc Feb-Mar 2012, Nov 2012, Mar 2013, and May 2013)

410902 Estimated since Aug 2013

411048 Estimated July 2012 thru Feb 2014

412906 Estimated since Jan 2013

413240 Estimated since March 2013

413280 Estimated since Oct 2012

415018 Estimated since April 2010, defunct since Dec 2012

415429 Estimated since May 2013

416276 Estimated since Nov 2012

417945 Estimated since May 2013

418201Estimated since April 2013 (exc Dec 2013).

interesting times ahead.

 

[Crick]

Is this it? Is AGW going to fail now?

 

[IanC]

What underlying problem would that be Ian?

1) Is the world NOT warming up?
2) Is the greenhouse effect a SHAM?
3) Have humans NOT increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 120 ppm
4) Does CO2 NOT absorb infrared at the frequencies at which the Earth radiates it and at which water vapor does NOT absorb it?
5) Do increasing temperatures NOT cause CO2 to come out of solution in the world ocean?

Which is it Ian? WHAT is this "underlying problem"?

is this an adversarial thing? or do you really want my opinion?

1. the world is warming up. maybe not as much as the datasets say but still warming. see the rest of the tread for examples of why I say that.

the world also warmed up during the MWP , Roman, etc. Mann's hockeystick graph was shown to be incorrect both in methodolgy and data. the repercussions of those blatant mistakes were basically nil.

2. the greenhouse effect is real but exaggerated. the near surface loss in ability to radiate away energy is compensated for by the evapotranspiration cycle. water, in its multiple forms is a negative feedback not a positive one.

3. and 5. so which is it? humans or the oceans? obviously it is both. that is one of the reasons itfitzme's correlation graphs are ridiculous.

there are too many examples of mistakes in climate science that go unchallenged, and unpunished when they are kept in print even though debunked.

 

[IanC]

Is this it? Is AGW going to fail now?

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

 

[SSDD]

I've explained the illogical nature of your use of that graph before. Your big bonehead error is that you're assuming a single point at Vostok represents the whole world.

That's called a cherrypicking fallacy. You depend almost entirely on cherrypicking fallacies. Since your conclusion are based on an obvious fallacy, your conclusions are invalid.

Now, would you care to offer a counterargument as to why your cherrypicking fallacy doesn't invalidate your claims? That's what a rational and honest person would do. A cowardly liar, alas, would hurl insults and avoid such a discussion.

Ahhhh, look at the Culty yelling DENIER! at the mean old Vostock Ice Cores

Isn't it cute how the admiral makes inane comments backed up by nothing and then goes on to claim that s/he has "explained" it all and apparently believes it? Used to see that sort of explanations from kids on the old Art Linkletter show. Don't know if you are old enough to remember that..."Kids say the darndest things"

 

[SSDD]

What underlying problem would that be Ian?

1) Is the world NOT warming up?

The word has not warmed in damned near 320 years now in spite of a steady increase in so called greenhouse gasses and some very interesting work by kent is pointing towards some serious cooling in the near future...further, he has the balls to make an actual prediction of it so that if he is wrong, his hypothesis can be falsified as quickly as possible...real science.

) Is the greenhouse effect a SHAM?

As described by climate science...yes.

) Have humans NOT increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 120 ppm

Not only is there no hard proof of that...there is zero actual proof that even if the claim is true, that it has anything to do with the global climate.

) Does CO2 NOT absorb infrared at the frequencies at which the Earth radiates it and at which water vapor does NOT absorb it?

Absorption and emission do not equal warming...they equal absorption and emission.

) Do increasing temperatures NOT cause CO2 to come out of solution in the world ocean?

What caused the increasing temperatures in the first place and can you convincingly, with actual hard data separate out a human signature from natural variation?

is it Ian? WHAT is this "underlying problem"?

The underlying problem is fraud on the part of some half assed pseudoscientists.

 

[Crick]

What underlying problem would that be Ian?

1) Is the world NOT warming up?
2) Is the greenhouse effect a SHAM?
3) Have humans NOT increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 120 ppm
4) Does CO2 NOT absorb infrared at the frequencies at which the Earth radiates it and at which water vapor does NOT absorb it?
5) Do increasing temperatures NOT cause CO2 to come out of solution in the world ocean?

Which is it Ian? WHAT is this "underlying problem"?

is this an adversarial thing? or do you really want my opinion?

You stated there was an underlying problem but you failed to identify it or characterize it in any way. I was attempting to prod you along to full disclosure.

1. the world is warming up. maybe not as much as the datasets say but still warming. see the rest of the tread for examples of why I say that.

the world also warmed up during the MWP , Roman, etc. Mann's hockeystick graph was shown to be incorrect both in methodolgy and data. the repercussions of those blatant mistakes were basically nil.

As I have said many times before, so what? What bearing does the MWP have on the current situation? And quite the cop out on supporting your contentions.

2. the greenhouse effect is real but exaggerated.

Exaggerated by whom? All the world's atmospheric physicists?

the near surface loss in ability to radiate away energy is compensated for by the evapotranspiration cycle. water, in its multiple forms is a negative feedback not a positive one.

I'd like to see a qualified study on that point. It strikes me as odd that you think adding more water vapor to the near surface atmosphere would accentuate radiative heat loss. I also don't see it having a lot of impact over the oceans, Antarctica, Greenland or the world's deserts. By my rough calculations that's 72% of the Earth's surface for which this countering effect of yours simply does not take place.

3. and 5. so which is it? humans or the oceans? obviously it is both. that is one of the reasons itfitzme's correlation graphs are ridiculous.

Your position would be the one here sporting ridiculousness. The isotopic analysis clearly shows how much of the atmosphere's and the ocean's increased CO2 levels originated with the human combustion of fossil fuels. My mention of CO2 coming out of sequestration was intended merely to support CS values that include the real world's secondary - but unavoidable and undeniable - feedbacks.

there are too many examples of mistakes in climate science that go unchallenged, and unpunished when they are kept in print even though debunked.

I find it amazing you have the nerve to complain about the persistence of debunked propositions. Simply amazing.

 

[SSDD]

Is this it? Is AGW going to fail now?

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

Of course it would be a tragedy from his point of view. We are talking about his faith here...his religion...the thing that makes his heart pump faster. To have to admit that he defended a fraud would be more than he could accept. I wasn't kidding when I wondered on the other thread how many of these nut jobs would suicide if the hoax fell.

 

[IanC]

Which is it Ian? WHAT is this "underlying problem"?

is this an adversarial thing? or do you really want my opinion?

You stated there was an underlying problem but you failed to identify it or characterize it in any way. I was attempting to prod you along to full disclosure.

do you read for comprehension, or do you just try to distort a comment into a strawman?

I thought I was pretty clear. any answer that comes from a mistaken method is WRONG! even if it is accidentally close to the truth. climate science has done a poor job of clearing mistakes from past research, so they keep popping up in new papers.

every exposed error is a chance to improve future work. but climate science seems to prefer more of the same garbage, so they reward the garbage. and guess what? they keep getting garbage.

 

[Crick]

Is this it? Is AGW going to fail now?

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

I am pleased that mistakes in the dataset are being discovered and corrected. I am not pleased that so many deniers will attempt to suggest that errors in the 1934 temperature readings in Bumfuck, Texas has any significance regarding the validity of AGW.

 

[IanC]

Is this it? Is AGW going to fail now?

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

Of course it would be a tragedy from his point of view. We are talking about his faith here...his religion...the thing that makes his heart pump faster. To have to admit that he defended a fraud would be more than he could accept. I wasn't kidding when I wondered on the other thread how many of these nut jobs would suicide if the hoax fell.

nope. in ten or twenty years they will have conveniently forgotten their present position, and will be declaring that they were one of the first to switch over to the rational side. lol

any that are old enough were probably stockpiling sweaters and down jackets back in the 70's.

 

[IanC]

Is this it? Is AGW going to fail now?

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

I am pleased that mistakes in the dataset are being discovered and corrected. I am not pleased that so many deniers will attempt to suggest that errors in the 1934 temperature readings in Bumfuck, Texas has any significance regarding the validity of AGW.

we are pointing out that the automatic homogenization that is going on corrupts the temperature record. replacing 11/12 months of 1934 data in 'Bumfuck, Texas' with estimated temperatures even though the data is present is not what people think is going on behind closed doors. did you think massive chunks of data from the past were being ignored and replaced with 'estimates'? how much 'adjustment' is too much? if the 'corrections' are larger than the trend, is that OK?

you keep saying AGW theory is OK even though every time an area is looked at, there are big, big problems. just how many problems does there have to be before you start wondering about whether your theory is valid as it stands now?

 

[SSDD]

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

Of course it would be a tragedy from his point of view. We are talking about his faith here...his religion...the thing that makes his heart pump faster. To have to admit that he defended a fraud would be more than he could accept. I wasn't kidding when I wondered on the other thread how many of these nut jobs would suicide if the hoax fell.

nope. in ten or twenty years they will have conveniently forgotten their present position, and will be declaring that they were one of the first to switch over to the rational side. lol

If you are even close to my age, you can remember past wacko positions, protests, etc. These warmers are even more wacko, and emotionally invested than the vietnam protesters were. The hysteria from them on this topic surpasses anything that I have seen in my 65+ years.....add in the fact that libs are much less grounded today in reality than even the viet nam protesters were and it wouldn't surprise me to see a boat load of them go over the deep end when the hoax finally crashes .

 

[Crick]

Which of those "big, big problems" falsify AGW Ian?

 

[SSDD]

are you insane? are you really unhappy that problems in the temperature datasets are being uncovered so that they can be corrected?

do you feel that it would be a tragedy if the catastrophic predictions and conclusions of exaggerated AGW theory dont come to pass? are you unhappy that temps arent going up at the predicted rates? it is obvious that there is a big and basic problem with AGW theory. dont you think we should fix it?

I am pleased that mistakes in the dataset are being discovered and corrected. I am not pleased that so many deniers will attempt to suggest that errors in the 1934 temperature readings in Bumfuck, Texas has any significance regarding the validity of AGW.

we are pointing out that the automatic homogenization that is going on corrupts the temperature record. replacing 11/12 months of 1934 data in 'Bumfuck, Texas' with estimated temperatures even though the data is present is not what people think is going on behind closed doors. did you think massive chunks of data from the past were being ignored and replaced with 'estimates'? how much 'adjustment' is too much? if the 'corrections' are larger than the trend, is that OK?

you keep saying AGW theory is OK even though every time an area is looked at, there are big, big problems. just how many problems does there have to be before you start wondering about whether your theory is valid as it stands now?

Its like the guy said...suppose wall street were using data from defunct companies to assure the continuity of their graphs...the world would rightly have a cow over the fraud...interesting that warmers think it is fine to do the same thing with temperature records.

 

[Crick]

Interesting that deniers assume any change in the data is proof of fraud.

 

[mamooth]

No entirely true. If current temperatures are adjusted are downward to compensate for the UHI effect, then they like that adjustment.

In contrast, the rational side supports all adjustments that give more accurate data, and not just the ones that push the results a certain way.

 

[IanC]

Which of those "big, big problems" falsify AGW Ian?

first you define AGW. we have had this problem before. I am a skeptic yet you call me a denier. I say ~1C warming per 2xCO2 and you say 2-6C. I say SLR will continue at very close to the same rate as the last 100 years, you say 1-2 meters by 2100.

AGW theory has predicted exaggerated amounts of warming. nature has not produced it, time to go back to the drawing board with more realistic assumptions.

 

[Crick]

Human activities (emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation) are the primary cause for the warming observed over the last 150 years.

Which of your "big, big problems" would or could falsify that proposition?