the BEST view on the Paraguay scandal

[Crick]

I went back and scanned the Rohde paper on BEST methodologies. this paragraph stuck out.

The median length of a temperature time series processed by the
Berkeley Average was only 5.9 years. Further, the inner 50% range for
station record lengths was 2.3 to 10.8 years, and only 4.5% of records
were longer than 30 years. This compares to GHCN data before the
scalpel was applied where 72% of the time series are longer than 30
years and the median length is nearly 50 years. As already stated, the
current climate change analysis framework is designed to be very
tolerant of short and discontinuous records which will allow it to
work with a wide variety of data.

I have said this before. how can you find climatic signals (ie. 30 years) from records that are cut up into little chunks and then sewn back together in such a way as to 'meet expectations'.

I think we have moved so far away from actual data that Global Temperature Datasets should come with a warning like food products. instead of "contains 10% real juice", we could have "contains 4.5% real data, from concentrate".

I think you don't have a fucking clue.

 

[IanC]

I went back and scanned the Rohde paper on BEST methodologies. this paragraph stuck out.

The median length of a temperature time series processed by the
Berkeley Average was only 5.9 years. Further, the inner 50% range for
station record lengths was 2.3 to 10.8 years, and only 4.5% of records
were longer than 30 years. This compares to GHCN data before the
scalpel was applied where 72% of the time series are longer than 30
years and the median length is nearly 50 years. As already stated, the
current climate change analysis framework is designed to be very
tolerant of short and discontinuous records which will allow it to
work with a wide variety of data.

I have said this before. how can you find climatic signals (ie. 30 years) from records that are cut up into little chunks and then sewn back together in such a way as to 'meet expectations'.

I think we have moved so far away from actual data that Global Temperature Datasets should come with a warning like food products. instead of "contains 10% real juice", we could have "contains 4.5% real data, from concentrate".

I think you don't have a fucking clue.

and I think you are gullible. it's people like you that kept Bernie Madoff in business long after some were screaming for him to be investigated.

 

[Crick]

Not a fucking clue.

I've asked this simple question on numerous occasions but have yet to get a single answer. Can you explain why climate scientists - the people who would actually know and whose life's work would be affected = aren't screaming about these adjustments if they're as unjustified as you all claim? Not a goddamn peep.

Don't you realize this is just another version of the giant global conspiracy nonsense? C'mon, dude, you're smarter than that.

 

[IanC]

Not a fucking clue.

I've asked this simple question on numerous occasions but have yet to get a single answer. Can you explain why climate scientists - the people who would actually know and whose life's work would be affected = aren't screaming about these adjustments if they're as unjustified as you all claim? Not a goddamn peep.

Don't you realize this is just another version of the giant global conspiracy nonsense? C'mon, dude, you're smarter than that.

for the most part it is professional courtesy. it is much easier, and less harmful to your career to go along with 'consensus'.

and to be honest, I think it only makes a difference of 0.1-0.3C on average. my biggest complaint is that doing something in an incorrect way is not science. even if you get the exact right answer. hiding mistakes, flaws, and misdirections is simply not the right way to do science.

 

[Crick]

Professional courtesy? Are you crazy?!? Science lives on proving the dominant theory wrong. You don't advance in science by nodding your head and agreeing, you advance by finding what someone else did wrong, what they missed, what they failed to check. Scientists are the original skeptics. The denier crowd are the worst of pretenders in that regard.

YOUR position requires a giant global conspiracy and such a thing is complete nonsense.

 

[IanC]

Professional courtesy? Are you crazy?!? Science lives on proving the dominant theory wrong. You don't advance in science by nodding your head and agreeing, you advance by finding what someone else did wrong, what they missed, what they failed to check. Scientists are the original skeptics. The denier crowd are the worst of pretenders in that regard.

YOUR position requires a giant global conspiracy and such a thing is complete nonsense.

what science should do, and what climate science does, has been out of whack for quite a while now.

groupthink, and producing 'evidence' for global warming funding has short circuited the pathway to understanding the climate system. as Curry pointed out, we need to hit the reset button on what we think we know and start revising our thinking to incorporate the data instead of the models.

 

[Crick]

That doesn't change the fact that your position requires a giant global conspiracy among climate scientists. In the acidification thread, we have Curry taking the word of Craig Idso - a geographer who, along with the rest of his family, has sold himself out as blatantly as he could, to the fossil fuel industry - over the opinion of one of the world's strongest experts in the field of oceanic CO2 chemistry because he actually thinks congress should act on what all his research and all the research of those in the field have shown him to be the case.

This does not make me think that Curry is the best judge of who and what we ought to be listening to.

 

[IanC]

That doesn't change the fact that your position requires a giant global conspiracy among climate scientists. In the acidification thread, we have Curry taking the word of Craig Idso - a geographer who, along with the rest of his family, has sold himself out as blatantly as he could, to the fossil fuel industry - over the opinion of one of the world's strongest experts in the field of oceanic CO2 chemistry because he actually thinks congress should act on what all his research and all the research of those in the field have shown him to be the case.

This does not make me think that Curry is the best judge of who and what we ought to be listening to.

Hahaha. What is that quote? Something about it is hard to convince a man about a fact when his livelihood depends on him disbelieving it.

You see conspiracy, I see groupthink and mission drift combined with incompetency.

 

[mamooth]

We see you being duped by a psuedoscience cult.

Any evidence that you don't like, you declare it's fake. That's one way to spot pseudoscience, by the way it's set up to be unfalsifiable.

 

[skookerasbil]

Great thread Ian...........shit.........the fuckers are screwing with the data every day.


ghey

 

[skookerasbil]

I have to laugh watching the AGW nutters knocking themselves out for the past 15 years with billions of internet posts about temperatures.

Yet in 2015........and every poll shows it by the way...............

Hey Democrats Nobody Cares About Abortion Gun Control Or Global Warming Downtrend

 

[jc456]

Professional courtesy? Are you crazy?!? Science lives on proving the dominant theory wrong. You don't advance in science by nodding your head and agreeing, you advance by finding what someone else did wrong, what they missed, what they failed to check. Scientists are the original skeptics. The denier crowd are the worst of pretenders in that regard.

YOUR position requires a giant global conspiracy and such a thing is complete nonsense.

now that may be in most other science fields, but climate science? uh, uh

 

[jc456]

We see you being duped by a psuedoscience cult.

Any evidence that you don't like, you declare it's fake. That's one way to spot pseudoscience, by the way it's set up to be unfalsifiable.

if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. When will you ever edgumicate yourself?

 

[IanC]

we seldom talk about the University of East Anglia temperature products. dont worry, they introduced a new version in 2012 as well, with the same results.

The Met Office’s Hadley Center are responsible for compiling the HADCRUT global temperature datasets, in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

In 2012, they brought out the new HADCRUT4 version, which had the effect of slightly increasing the warming trend, particularly in recent years. As part of the switch from HADCRUT3 to HADCRUT4, they also introduced a new land only temperature series, CRUTEM4.

Woodfortrees noticed at the time how much this had changed since the CRUTEM3 version. And, unsurprisingly, it had the effect of increasing the warming trend.

wow1 that's pretty close to a 0.2C difference in the 2000's. imagine that, more warming is discovered hiding in the data yet again! makes you wonder if they have found it all yet.

 

[Crick]

You believe that the data move in an direction you don't WANT them to move, is evidence of fraud? There's a name for that Ian.

 

[IanC]

every version change makes the present temps warmer and the trend larger. we are long past TOBS corrections, etc. it's all computer model adjustments now.

you say they are all justified but specific questions on specific stations go unanswered, and seem to be unanswerable by reasonable methods.

 

[Crick]

Would undoing the changes made to those specific stations overturn AGW?

Would they come anywhere near doing so?

Would they even be visible on global basis?

I thought not.

 

[IanC]

Would undoing the changes made to those specific stations overturn AGW?

Would they come anywhere near doing so?

Would they even be visible on global basis?

I thought not.

why do you hand wave away every mistake or poor decision?

would finding out why the adjustments were so outrageous and volatile in Iceland make a difference. Yes, I think it would. maybe then they could avoid making the same mistakes again and again in Iceland as well as catch the same type of mistake elsewhere.

yes, I think restricting large adjustments to situations where a known condition caused it would make a noticeable difference in the data. especially with BEST.

 

[Crick]

Why do you hand wave away the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign? Why do you ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent to disseminate lies about global warming and climate science to the American public? Doesn't it occur to you that a hundred scientists doing precisely what Willie Soon has been doing does a lot more harm to science than anything you've all been able to come up with?

 

[jc456]

Why do you hand wave away the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign? Why do you ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent to disseminate lies about global warming and climate science to the American public? Doesn't it occur to you that a hundred scientists doing precisely what Willie Soon has been doing does a lot more harm to science than anything you've all been able to come up with?

Why not hang with the scientists in the picc? Hahahaha