More Globaloney from NOAA

[IanC]

Here's something the deniers might want to look at, a layman's explanation of temperature data set corrections. It's on Judith Curry's blog, an approved denier source, so denier cult members are permitted to look at it. I know how important it is for denier cultists to believe their souls have remained pure, unsullied by contact with heretics that contradict their religious beliefs.

Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Even at a layman's level, it's going to be beyond the grasp of most deniers, but I can't help out there. Complicated issues can only be dumbed down so much.

Nick Stokes has graphs of US and individual state adjustments at his blog Moyhu. Funnily enough, they are very similar to Goddard's graphs, or Homewood's. I am glad that this is getting some public traction and that the adjustments are being pulled out of the black box of NOAA algorithms. Interesting times.

 

[Crick]

Yes, interesting times. Like all that traction you guys made with the emails you stole* from CRU. Incredible. The scientists rushing your way were like a stampede of wildebeests. Right? Yeah... wildebeests..


* I'm including you as an accomplice on the assumption that, knowing they were stolen, private communications, you posted them on public forums. If you never did such a thing, I take it all back.

 

[Crick]

Understanding adjustments to temperature data

From www.judithcurry.com: Understanding adjustments to temperature data | Climate Etc.

Posted on July 7, 2014
by Zeke Hausfather

There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

This will be the first post in a three-part series examining adjustments in temperature data, with a specific focus on the U.S. land temperatures. This post will provide an overview of the adjustments done and their relative effect on temperatures. The second post will examine Time of Observation adjustments in more detail, using hourly data from the pristine U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) to empirically demonstrate the potential bias introduced by different observation times. The final post will examine automated pairwise homogenization approaches in more detail, looking at how breakpoints are detected and how algorithms can tested to ensure that they are equally effective at removing both cooling and warming biases.

Why Adjust Temperatures?

There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record. Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.
******************************************************************************
This article carries on for some length and has numerous graphics to which I didn't bother linking. Go to JUDITH CURRY'S website and read the rest.

Or you can stay with your unsubstantiated paranoia.

 

[IanC]

hahahahahahahaha

Richard Day says:
Germany demolished Brazil 7-1 today in the World Cup.
I’m sorry, but that is not correct.
Your problem is, you are using the raw score. When the proper pairwise homogenization algorithm is applied, comparison to similar soccer games played within a 1500 km radius flags the score 7-1 as a soccer score discontinuity. To correct this obvious error, the anomalous values are replaced with regional average scores. After adjustment, Brazil won 3-2..”

 

[IanC]

Yes, interesting times. Like all that traction you guys made with the emails you stole* from CRU. Incredible. The scientists rushing your way were like a stampede of wildebeests. Right? Yeah... wildebeests..


* I'm including you as an accomplice on the assumption that, knowing they were stolen, private communications, you posted them on public forums. If you never did such a thing, I take it all back.

that's odd. I seem to remember that you were quite pleased that Gleick used fraudulent means to acquire Heartland documents, then finding nothing worthwhile he forged a fake document to rile up the warmers. seems you have a double standard there. were the climategate emails stolen or leaked? were there any faked emails? were there any climategate emails that would not have been subject to FOI, given the same standard that skeptic's emails are released?

of course you have a point. when Mann got away with his hockeystick shenanigans, and Journals blocked the release of data, etc, climate scientists took heart that they could simply bluff their way out of the climategate emails. and to a very large extent they did. Phil Jones was never publicly sanctioned for his 'delete all AR4 emails' email. he was never even questioned about it by the two british inquiries!!!!! they knew how to get to the bottom of things, eh?

but in the overall view, the public who are interested in global warming and CAGW have heard about and read some of the climategate emails. anyone with the slightest amount of scientific background knows that the slimey excuses for 'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' were totally lame. you cannot unring a bell, so anyone who even casually hears about the lack of ethics in so many of the high profile climate scientists will never be able to muster the blind devotion to authority that you espouse.

 

[itfitzme]

noaa quietly decided that 2012 was not the hottest on record after all...

Globaloney: NOAA Quietly Changes Warmest Year Back to 1936 Without Comment | Wizbang

This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately. In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.

It it a "someone says that someone else says that someone else said" story. When will people get that it is meaningless hear-say.

 

[Crick]

Yes, interesting times. Like all that traction you guys made with the emails you stole* from CRU. Incredible. The scientists rushing your way were like a stampede of wildebeests. Right? Yeah... wildebeests..


* I'm including you as an accomplice on the assumption that, knowing they were stolen, private communications, you posted them on public forums. If you never did such a thing, I take it all back.

that's odd. I seem to remember that you were quite pleased that Gleick used fraudulent means to acquire Heartland documents, then finding nothing worthwhile he forged a fake document to rile up the warmers. seems you have a double standard there. were the climategate emails stolen or leaked? were there any faked emails? were there any climategate emails that would not have been subject to FOI, given the same standard that skeptic's emails are released?

A few points:

1) While you folks like to assume it's a fact, no one has ever proven that Gleick manufactured any of the documents he released.
2) UEA/CRU is not working to harm the humanity to make a profit. That is precisely what Heartland does for a living.

of course you have a point. when Mann got away with his hockeystick shenanigans, and Journals blocked the release of data, etc, climate scientists took heart that they could simply bluff their way out of the climategate emails. and to a very large extent they did.

Aside from his poor response to FOIA requests (of which you KNOW 99% of which were bullshit harassment), the stolen emails evidenced nothing. How many times are we going to hear denier's sodden interpretation of "hide the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick"? Jones, et al, went through seven different reviews without any finding of fraud, improper data manipulation or criminal behavior because there was none.

Phil Jones was never publicly sanctioned for his 'delete all AR4 emails' email. he was never even questioned about it by the two british inquiries!!!!! they knew how to get to the bottom of things, eh?

Don't be upset. The British government is simply not as abysmally inept and insanely paranoid as the typical AGW denier.

but in the overall view, the public who are interested in global warming and CAGW have heard about and read some of the climategate emails. anyone with the slightest amount of scientific background knows that the slimey excuses for 'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' were totally lame. you cannot unring a bell, so anyone who even casually hears about the lack of ethics in so many of the high profile climate scientists will never be able to muster the blind devotion to authority that you espouse.

Coming to scientific opinions is not accomplished with blind devotion to authority. Correctly interpreting a conversation between PhD climate scientists in a field as obscure as dendrochronology REQUIRES more than "the slightest amount of scientific background". Others IN that field have universally stated that Jones and Mann's explanations of those phrases are correct and the common usage. Examples of their use by others have been given. I think perhaps what's needed is a little more examination of YOUR authorities as their objectivity and knowledge base seem to be seriously lacking.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, interesting times. Like all that traction you guys made with the emails you stole* from CRU. Incredible. The scientists rushing your way were like a stampede of wildebeests. Right? Yeah... wildebeests..


* I'm including you as an accomplice on the assumption that, knowing they were stolen, private communications, you posted them on public forums. If you never did such a thing, I take it all back.

that's odd. I seem to remember that you were quite pleased that Gleick used fraudulent means to acquire Heartland documents, then finding nothing worthwhile he forged a fake document to rile up the warmers. seems you have a double standard there. were the climategate emails stolen or leaked? were there any faked emails? were there any climategate emails that would not have been subject to FOI, given the same standard that skeptic's emails are released?

of course you have a point. when Mann got away with his hockeystick shenanigans, and Journals blocked the release of data, etc, climate scientists took heart that they could simply bluff their way out of the climategate emails. and to a very large extent they did. Phil Jones was never publicly sanctioned for his 'delete all AR4 emails' email. he was never even questioned about it by the two british inquiries!!!!! they knew how to get to the bottom of things, eh?

but in the overall view, the public who are interested in global warming and CAGW have heard about and read some of the climategate emails. anyone with the slightest amount of scientific background knows that the slimey excuses for 'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' were totally lame. you cannot unring a bell, so anyone who even casually hears about the lack of ethics in so many of the high profile climate scientists will never be able to muster the blind devotion to authority that you espouse.

You are still imagining that it means something, eh? Must be a lack of engineering and functional scientific knowledge. With a touch of conspiracy theory delusion sprinkled on top.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, interesting times. Like all that traction you guys made with the emails you stole* from CRU. Incredible. The scientists rushing your way were like a stampede of wildebeests. Right? Yeah... wildebeests..


* I'm including you as an accomplice on the assumption that, knowing they were stolen, private communications, you posted them on public forums. If you never did such a thing, I take it all back.

that's odd. I seem to remember that you were quite pleased that Gleick used fraudulent means to acquire Heartland documents, then finding nothing worthwhile he forged a fake document to rile up the warmers. seems you have a double standard there. were the climategate emails stolen or leaked? were there any faked emails? were there any climategate emails that would not have been subject to FOI, given the same standard that skeptic's emails are released?

A few points:

1) While you folks like to assume it's a fact, no one has ever proven that Gleick manufactured any of the documents he released.
2) UEA/CRU is not working to harm the humanity to make a profit. That is precisely what Heartland does for a living.



Aside from his poor response to FOIA requests (of which you KNOW 99% of which were bullshit harassment), the stolen emails evidenced nothing. How many times are we going to hear denier's sodden interpretation of "hide the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick"? Jones, et al, went through seven different reviews without any finding of fraud, improper data manipulation or criminal behavior because there was none.

Phil Jones was never publicly sanctioned for his 'delete all AR4 emails' email. he was never even questioned about it by the two british inquiries!!!!! they knew how to get to the bottom of things, eh?

Don't be upset. The British government is simply not as abysmally inept and insanely paranoid as the typical AGW denier.

but in the overall view, the public who are interested in global warming and CAGW have heard about and read some of the climategate emails. anyone with the slightest amount of scientific background knows that the slimey excuses for 'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' were totally lame. you cannot unring a bell, so anyone who even casually hears about the lack of ethics in so many of the high profile climate scientists will never be able to muster the blind devotion to authority that you espouse.

Coming to scientific opinions is not accomplished with blind devotion to authority. Correctly interpreting a conversation between PhD climate scientists in a field as obscure as dendrochronology REQUIRES more than "the slightest amount of scientific background". Others IN that field have universally stated that Jones and Mann's explanations of those phrases are correct and the common usage. Examples of their use by others have been given. I think perhaps what's needed is a little more examination of YOUR authorities as their objectivity and knowledge base seem to be seriously lacking.

It's the difference between sitting around, complaining about others, and actualy doing the work. My auto mechanic has a few tricks up his sleave. And gosh, he's not faking a running car, it actually does.

 

[IanC]

that's odd. I seem to remember that you were quite pleased that Gleick used fraudulent means to acquire Heartland documents, then finding nothing worthwhile he forged a fake document to rile up the warmers. seems you have a double standard there. were the climategate emails stolen or leaked? were there any faked emails? were there any climategate emails that would not have been subject to FOI, given the same standard that skeptic's emails are released?

A few points:

1) While you folks like to assume it's a fact, no one has ever proven that Gleick manufactured any of the documents he released.
2) UEA/CRU is not working to harm the humanity to make a profit. That is precisely what Heartland does for a living.



Aside from his poor response to FOIA requests (of which you KNOW 99% of which were bullshit harassment), the stolen emails evidenced nothing. How many times are we going to hear denier's sodden interpretation of "hide the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick"? Jones, et al, went through seven different reviews without any finding of fraud, improper data manipulation or criminal behavior because there was none.



Don't be upset. The British government is simply not as abysmally inept and insanely paranoid as the typical AGW denier.

but in the overall view, the public who are interested in global warming and CAGW have heard about and read some of the climategate emails. anyone with the slightest amount of scientific background knows that the slimey excuses for 'hide the decline' and 'Mike's Nature trick' were totally lame. you cannot unring a bell, so anyone who even casually hears about the lack of ethics in so many of the high profile climate scientists will never be able to muster the blind devotion to authority that you espouse.

Coming to scientific opinions is not accomplished with blind devotion to authority. Correctly interpreting a conversation between PhD climate scientists in a field as obscure as dendrochronology REQUIRES more than "the slightest amount of scientific background". Others IN that field have universally stated that Jones and Mann's explanations of those phrases are correct and the common usage. Examples of their use by others have been given. I think perhaps what's needed is a little more examination of YOUR authorities as their objectivity and knowledge base seem to be seriously lacking.

It's the difference between sitting around, complaining about others, and actualy doing the work. My auto mechanic has a few tricks up his sleave. And gosh, he's not faking a running car, it actually does.

you guys are funny! if you think it is scientifically correct to amputate inconvenient data like making topiary or bonzai, then you should go back to school for a refresher course ( this what was done in hide the decline). you would go to jail if you were an accountant who mixed two different accounts, then smoothed and photoshopped the results to trick people into seeing something that wasnt there (Mike's Nature Trick). even Muller, who was and is a great supporter of the IPCC and CO2 theory was disgusted by the dishonesty.

your support of obviously unethical work and the lame excuses for it is on par with believing the criminal who claimed the stabbing victim 'fell' on his knife.

 

[Crick]

if you think it is scientifically correct to amputate inconvenient data like making topiary or bonzai, then you should go back to school for a refresher course ( this what was done in hide the decline). you would go to jail if you were an accountant who mixed two different accounts, then smoothed and photoshopped the results to trick people into seeing something that wasnt there (Mike's Nature Trick).

How would you handle a sudden change in proportionality factors in a period in which instrument data is available? I'd really like to know.

 

[jc456]

if you think it is scientifically correct to amputate inconvenient data like making topiary or bonzai, then you should go back to school for a refresher course ( this what was done in hide the decline). you would go to jail if you were an accountant who mixed two different accounts, then smoothed and photoshopped the results to trick people into seeing something that wasnt there (Mike's Nature Trick).

How would you handle a sudden change in proportionality factors in a period in which instrument data is available? I'd really like to know.

Why do you feel you have to manipulate the data merely because the instrument changed?

 

[IanC]

A few points:

1) While you folks like to assume it's a fact, no one has ever proven that Gleick manufactured any of the documents he released.
2) UEA/CRU is not working to harm the humanity to make a profit. That is precisely what Heartland does for a living.

are you saying that Gleick is less culpable if someone else fashioned the fraudulent Heartland document, and he only released it knowing that it was fake?

 

[IanC]

if you think it is scientifically correct to amputate inconvenient data like making topiary or bonzai, then you should go back to school for a refresher course ( this what was done in hide the decline). you would go to jail if you were an accountant who mixed two different accounts, then smoothed and photoshopped the results to trick people into seeing something that wasnt there (Mike's Nature Trick).

How would you handle a sudden change in proportionality factors in a period in which instrument data is available? I'd really like to know.

the Briffa treering proxy is the one most associated with 'hide the decline'. the first fifth and the last fifth were cut off so that the remaining 3/5ths would have a reasonable correlation with other proxies and the instrumental data. why should you be able to throw away 40% of a proxy record (especially without acknowledging it) so that you can get a decent correlation? dishonest and ethically challenged. likewise for padding and smoothing proxy and instrumental data so that they match exactly.

 

[SSDD]

A few points:

1) While you folks like to assume it's a fact, no one has ever proven that Gleick manufactured any of the documents he released.
2) UEA/CRU is not working to harm the humanity to make a profit. That is precisely what Heartland does for a living.

are you saying that Gleick is less culpable if someone else fashioned the fraudulent Heartland document, and he only released it knowing that it was fake?

I often wonder what sort of parents and upbringing people have to have in order to end up with such a complete lack of ethics. If one of my children ever exhibited the complete lack of principles as is typical of our dear warmist wackos, I would consider myself a failure as a parent and beg their forgiveness for failing them so profoundly.

 

[IanC]

A few points:

1) While you folks like to assume it's a fact, no one has ever proven that Gleick manufactured any of the documents he released.
2) UEA/CRU is not working to harm the humanity to make a profit. That is precisely what Heartland does for a living.

are you saying that Gleick is less culpable if someone else fashioned the fraudulent Heartland document, and he only released it knowing that it was fake?

I often wonder what sort of parents and upbringing people have to have in order to end up with such a complete lack of ethics. If one of my children ever exhibited a complete lack of principles as people like crickham I would consider myself a failure as a parent....

I know. I am shocked at how the warmers' side will accept just about any type of behaviour if it is done in the name of the 'Noble Cause'.

 

[mamooth]

Ian and SSDD, given you're just proud parrots of cult liars now, you have no moral standing to be lecturing honest people. You'll need to abandon and condemn your liars' cult before anyone will take you seriously.

 

[jc456]

Ian and SSDD, given you're just proud parrots of cult liars now, you have no moral standing to be lecturing honest people. You'll need to abandon and condemn your liars' cult before anyone will take you seriously.

hahahahahahaahahahhahaahahahahaahahaahahaha...........................

 

[IanC]

Ian and SSDD, given you're just proud parrots of cult liars now, you have no moral standing to be lecturing honest people. You'll need to abandon and condemn your liars' cult before anyone will take you seriously.

well, I certainly have more moral standing than you. when was the last time you posted anything but insults? you really have become a troll, spamming the same ad homs, over and over and over again. it's boring actually.

 

[SSDD]

Ian and SSDD, given you're just proud parrots of cult liars now, you have no moral standing to be lecturing honest people. You'll need to abandon and condemn your liars' cult before anyone will take you seriously.

Honest people don't need lecturing....and the truly dishonest, like you, rarely even know how dishonest they are.