For Crickham- Critique of GISS Urbanization Adjustments

[IanC]

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.

Yes I have fewer problems with realistic adjustments. The fact that UHI adjustments are a net positive rather than a net negative would surprise most people.

 

[Crick]

Particularly Anthony Watts.

 

[Kosh]

Particularly Anthony Watts.

Says the worshiper of James Hansen and Al Gore!

 

[SSDD]

Particularly Anthony Watts.

Says the worshiper of James Hansen and Al Gore!

Interesting that anyone would claim hansen as the top of any field except perhaps the field of nutty pseudoscientist perfessers....especially considering his track record.

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” (prediction for 2006)

1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.” Implying that the warm winters are now going to be typical, a short term implied prediction. Careless of him. Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.

What a nut job and the crazy part is these people still respect him and believe he belongs at the top of his field....speaks volumes about the field doesn't it?

 

[Crick]

The Warmers have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times now, they have no credibility

perhaps. but at least this paper shows why and how that thumb is applied. I read at least one of the Hansen&Reudy papers on UHI correction but this paper explains it better than they did. the homogenization algorithm is, um, interesting.

Allow me to repeat: Version 0.1, NO PEER REVIEW. Your paper is crap.

 

[SSDD]

The Warmers have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times now, they have no credibility

perhaps. but at least this paper shows why and how that thumb is applied. I read at least one of the Hansen&Reudy papers on UHI correction but this paper explains it better than they did. the homogenization algorithm is, um, interesting.

Allow me to repeat: Version 0.1, NO PEER REVIEW. Your paper is crap.

Mann's pal reviewed hockey stick paper was crap...what's your point?

 

[Crick]

The world of climate science is still filled with hockey stick shaped graphs. How long do you think it'll be before this piece o'shite gets past a peer review?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Unfortunately most of the changes are in the opposite direction.

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.

How would anyone determine of the changes made the data "more accurate?" What are they comparing it with to make that determination?

 

[Kosh]

The world of climate science is still filled with hockey stick shaped graphs. How long do you think it'll be before this piece o'shite gets past a peer review?

Yet none are true which shows that AGW is religious cult and if you want to study this area you must conform to the cult or they oust you.

The trillions in grant money world wide of this is riding on the cult being able to produce non scientific results and make law makers believe it so they can get more money

AGW is crap just like all of it's members.

 

[IanC]

The Warmers have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times now, they have no credibility

perhaps. but at least this paper shows why and how that thumb is applied. I read at least one of the Hansen&Reudy papers on UHI correction but this paper explains it better than they did. the homogenization algorithm is, um, interesting.

Allow me to repeat: Version 0.1, NO PEER REVIEW. Your paper is crap.

out of curiosity, did you ever read it? perhaps you can elaborate as to what parts you think are wrong.

 

[IanC]

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

actually you arch nemesis denier Anthony Watts claims it is incompetence rather than fraud-

This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bullshit of the highest order. It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.

NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate.

That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

We already showed yesterday that NOAA can’t get their output data files correct, and we are waiting on a statement and a possible correction for that. But I think the problem is even larger than that, and will require an investigation from an unbiased outside source to get to the root of the problem.

NOAA?s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future ? July 1936 now hottest month again | Watts Up With That?

 

[Crick]

"Fabricating data" is not a charge of incompetence, it is one of fraud.

 

[SSDD]

perhaps. but at least this paper shows why and how that thumb is applied. I read at least one of the Hansen&Reudy papers on UHI correction but this paper explains it better than they did. the homogenization algorithm is, um, interesting.

Allow me to repeat: Version 0.1, NO PEER REVIEW. Your paper is crap.

out of curiosity, did you ever read it? perhaps you can elaborate as to what parts you think are wrong.

Two types of papers he religiously does not read...1) non peer reviewed papers which question his religion. 2) peer reviewed papers which question his religion.

 

[SSDD]

"Fabricating data" is not a charge of incompetence, it is one of fraud.

The evidence of fabrication is incontrovertible...glad you see it as fraud...because it is.

 

[IanC]

"Fabricating data" is not a charge of incompetence, it is one of fraud.

OK, if you insist, then it must be fraud. because the data has definitely been fabricated, lol

 

[IanC]

Allow me to repeat: Version 0.1, NO PEER REVIEW. Your paper is crap.

out of curiosity, did you ever read it? perhaps you can elaborate as to what parts you think are wrong.

Two types of papers he religiously does not read...1) non peer reviewed papers which question his religion. 2) peer reviewed papers which question his religion.

he has an overdeveloped need to acquiesce to authority. he thinks it is more important who says something, rather than what is said. sad really.

 

[SSDD]

out of curiosity, did you ever read it? perhaps you can elaborate as to what parts you think are wrong.

Two types of papers he religiously does not read...1) non peer reviewed papers which question his religion. 2) peer reviewed papers which question his religion.

he has an overdeveloped need to acquiesce to authority. he thinks it is more important who says something, rather than what is said. sad really.

One of the tragic drawbacks of having no foundational beliefs...be they religious in nature or otherwise....humans are hard wired to believe in something and those with no foundational beliefs all to often throw huge amounts of emotional energy into beliefs that simply aren't worth the energy they expend...They can't approach this topic rationally because it really is a belief system for them and belief and rational examination are uncomfortable bedfellows at best.

 

[mamooth]

Good to see you have some self-awareness, SSDD, as you seem to have no foundational belief other than "whatever helps me hate liberals is good". If the big lie helps your cause, you lie. If faking data helps your cause, then you fake.

That's just one reason why the world holds the denier cult in such contempt. Actual scientists hold honesty in high regard. They don't lie for the sake of politics like the denier cult so proudly does.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Warmers have been caught with their thumb on the scale so many times now, they have no credibility

perhaps. but at least this paper shows why and how that thumb is applied. I read at least one of the Hansen&Reudy papers on UHI correction but this paper explains it better than they did. the homogenization algorithm is, um, interesting.

Allow me to repeat: Version 0.1, NO PEER REVIEW. Your paper is crap.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because only fellow Cult Members get to speak on the topic

 

[jc456]

Good to see you have some self-awareness, SSDD, as you seem to have no foundational belief other than "whatever helps me hate liberals is good". If the big lie helps your cause, you lie. If faking data helps your cause, then you fake.

That's just one reason why the world holds the denier cult in such contempt. Actual scientists hold honesty in high regard. They don't lie for the sake of politics like the denier cult so proudly does.

Dude for the umpteenth time, show the experiment that proves your religion. It's very simple right?