Welcome to the Adjustocene

[flacaltenn]

I keep repeating this but I don't think people get the implication. Muller of BEST admitted that 1/3 of long running stations had negative temperature trends in the unhomogenized data.

There are NO negative trends in the homogenized data. None, Nada, Zilch. Every place has been adjusted to match local expectations, which are adjusted to match regional expectations, which are adjusted to.....global expectations. The methodology forces the trend while keeping some of the shape of the variation. Rinse and repeat.

And the BEST data actually preserves MOST of Rome history. Pretty much just mucks with the last decade.
Any idea what those "breakpoint adjustments" are? Sounds to me like there's a breakpoint with reality adjustment right around 1998..

 

[IanC]

I keep repeating this but I don't think people get the implication. Muller of BEST admitted that 1/3 of long running stations had negative temperature trends in the unhomogenized data.

There are NO negative trends in the homogenized data. None, Nada, Zilch. Every place has been adjusted to match local expectations, which are adjusted to match regional expectations, which are adjusted to.....global expectations. The methodology forces the trend while keeping some of the shape of the variation. Rinse and repeat.

And the BEST data actually preserves MOST of Rome history. Pretty much just mucks with the last decade.
Any idea what those "breakpoint adjustments" are? Sounds to me like there's a breakpoint with reality adjustment right around 1998..

Sorry, that is incorrect. I googled the BEST station number the other day and it took me to a Hadley Centre site that gave the raw data in, the adjustment and final temp. The adjustments cover the whole range.

 

[IanC]

Breakpoint adjustments are simply points where the algorithm thinks there is a problem because it doesn't match expectations and there is no nearby metadata change to cover up the need to chop up the record and rearrange it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Breakpoint adjustments are simply points where the algorithm thinks there is a problem because it doesn't match expectations and there is no nearby metadata change to cover up the need to chop up the record and rearrange it.

That's kinda what I thought. Breakpoints are what you use to APPROXIMATE an Idealized function out of raw data that doesn't fit the expectation or the theoretical "desired" result.. At least it's named correctly..

Explain what you meant by that the Rome Ga BEST version adjustments "cover the whole range". Because by inspection -- the older data does appear to be largely "unadjusted". You can see the sine-like structure up until about 1980 or so..

In ALL of the NOAA data -- there is DEFINITELY "a breakpoint" around 1960.. Because the data was PERFECT in 1960 and needed no adjustments..

 

[flacaltenn]

Got to remind you of the process at Hadley and who is behind the curtain there..

The Grand Wizard of the Adjustocene at work...

 

[IanC]

Got to remind you of the process at Hadley and who is behind the curtain there..

The Grand Wizard of the Adjustocene at work...

He didn't fight FOI just because he was afraid they would find something wrong, he also correctly assumed he wouldn't be able to find it!

 

[flacaltenn]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

 

[IanC]

Breakpoint adjustments are simply points where the algorithm thinks there is a problem because it doesn't match expectations and there is no nearby metadata change to cover up the need to chop up the record and rearrange it.

That's kinda what I thought. Breakpoints are what you use to APPROXIMATE an Idealized function out of raw data that doesn't fit the expectation or the theoretical "desired" result.. At least it's named correctly..

Explain what you meant by that the Rome Ga BEST version adjustments "cover the whole range". Because by inspection -- the older data does appear to be largely "unadjusted". You can see the sine-like structure up until about 1980 or so..

In ALL of the NOAA data -- there is DEFINITELY "a breakpoint" around 1960.. Because the data was PERFECT in 1960 and needed no adjustments..

To be honest, I didn't check to see where the adjustments went from cooling the past to warming the present. It was a big file that gave monthly stats, taking away about 0.5c early on and adding about 0.5c this century.

 

[jc456]

I keep repeating this but I don't think people get the implication. Muller of BEST admitted that 1/3 of long running stations had negative temperature trends in the unhomogenized data.

There are NO negative trends in the homogenized data. None, Nada, Zilch. Every place has been adjusted to match local expectations, which are adjusted to match regional expectations, which are adjusted to.....global expectations. The methodology forces the trend while keeping some of the shape of the variation. Rinse and repeat.

And the BEST data actually preserves MOST of Rome history. Pretty much just mucks with the last decade.
Any idea what those "breakpoint adjustments" are? Sounds to me like there's a breakpoint with reality adjustment right around 1998..

speaking of Rome, the weather had to be fairly warm to wear their getups don't you think?

 

[IanC]

Breakpoint adjustments are simply points where the algorithm thinks there is a problem because it doesn't match expectations and there is no nearby metadata change to cover up the need to chop up the record and rearrange it.

That's kinda what I thought. Breakpoints are what you use to APPROXIMATE an Idealized function out of raw data that doesn't fit the expectation or the theoretical "desired" result.. At least it's named correctly..

Explain what you meant by that the Rome Ga BEST version adjustments "cover the whole range". Because by inspection -- the older data does appear to be largely "unadjusted". You can see the sine-like structure up until about 1980 or so..

In ALL of the NOAA data -- there is DEFINITELY "a breakpoint" around 1960.. Because the data was PERFECT in 1960 and needed no adjustments..

To be honest, I didn't check to see where the adjustments went from cooling the past to warming the present. It was a big file that gave monthly stats, taking away about 0.5c early on and adding about 0.5c this century.

When I get back onto a real computer I'll check out the Hadley site where they store BEST data. You can see a lot more patterns with digital data rather than just a graph.

 

[IanC]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

here is GISS v.2 raw

GISS v.3 homogemized. NB the change in the y axis scale

BEST graph and table

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.86
After quality control 0.91
After breakpoint alignment 0.79
Regional expectation during same months 0.85 ± 0.14
National average during same months 0.67 ± 0.13
Global land average during same months 0.78 ± 0.07


and the actual raw data (supposedly) with separate adjustments-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/38814-TAVG-Data.txt

that you could compare to the GISS raw data (supposedly) -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_425725180040_0_0/station.txt




enjoy!

 

[IanC]

for comparison, data up to 2000, from flac's link. It would be nice to have a full set of GISS station data from back then.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Bob- every time you lie or exaggerate it makes my job as a reasonably well informed skeptic more difficult to accomplish. the other side has already done enough exaggerating and misdirecting to last a millennium. our side can only win by being honest, otherwise it is just one lie vs another lie.

I really wish you would stop making unsubstantiated comments on the science. perhaps you could just stick to your opinions on the political side of the debate where you would do less harm.

GISS V.3..

You guys are so sensitive!

 

[flacaltenn]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

here is GISS v.2 raw

GISS v.3 homogemized. NB the change in the y axis scale

BEST graph and table

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.86
After quality control 0.91
After breakpoint alignment 0.79
Regional expectation during same months 0.85 ± 0.14
National average during same months 0.67 ± 0.13
Global land average during same months 0.78 ± 0.07


and the actual raw data (supposedly) with separate adjustments-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/38814-TAVG-Data.txt

that you could compare to the GISS raw data (supposedly) -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_425725180040_0_0/station.txt




enjoy!

Unfortunately -- those GISS raw links are now "not found".. hmmmmmmm... Guess I better move that USHCN station to the safe deposit box..

So why would BEST cut off the Station Data at 1990 ????? Because it stopped tracking the "modeled" regional data??? My graphs had data past 1990...

 

[IanC]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

here is GISS v.2 raw

GISS v.3 homogemized. NB the change in the y axis scale

BEST graph and table

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.86
After quality control 0.91
After breakpoint alignment 0.79
Regional expectation during same months 0.85 ± 0.14
National average during same months 0.67 ± 0.13
Global land average during same months 0.78 ± 0.07


and the actual raw data (supposedly) with separate adjustments-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/38814-TAVG-Data.txt

that you could compare to the GISS raw data (supposedly) -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_425725180040_0_0/station.txt




enjoy!

Unfortunately -- those GISS raw links are now "not found".. hmmmmmmm... Guess I better move that USHCN station to the safe deposit box..

So why would BEST cut off the Station Data at 1990 ????? Because it stopped tracking the "modeled" regional data??? My graphs had data past 1990...

it was part of the Great Dying Off of thermometers in the early 90's. even if new data was available it was not being inputted.

interesting effect, eh?

I intuit that there may be other statistical artifacts present because of the loss of thermometers but I lack the statistical skill to demonstrate them.

 

[IanC]

remember the Y2K problem with GISS? here is the timeline for those that are unfamiliar with the story. NASA: "Hide this after Jim checks it"

"
At 10:23 Hansen complained that he is being “besieged” by emails (either the FOI is incomplete or, in Hansen-world, a few inquiries constitute a siege) and decided to “do something”:

I am being besieged by emails and calls about this, so we need to do something promptly as there will be stories written today for publication tomorrow… By the way, Makiko, do you remember if we ever make any statement about how different years ranked for the U.S. temperatures? There are several demands that we issue a press release correcting our wrong results and declaring that 1934 is now the warmest year on record in the US and also that 4 of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and only 3 in the last 10 years.

In the late morning, Ruedy answered Leslie McCarthy (apparently the PR person) sycophantically describing Hansen’s tirade to Revkin as answering in the “clearest and most beautiful way”, before making various accusations against me:

Andy Revkin asked the same question and Jim’s answer below says it all in the clearest and most beautiful way… The blog you attached is a prime example of what gives bloggers a really bad name; somebody with no idea what he is talking about is spouting absolute nonsense, making no distinction between what is essential (the facts he conveniently omits) and what is pure noise (which he is concentrating on exclusively). ..
He finds it astounding that the years 1934 and 1998 reversed ranks, not remembering that the corrections only affected years 2000-2006, hence there is no possible connection there. By speaking of warmest year (rather than warmest year in the US time record), he successfully deceived people like Mark Taylor.”

Just before noon Aug 10, Hansen again complains about being “besieged”, but this time with a knot in his stomach as he’s just been told that the earlier results have been “thrown away”, making a before and after comparison impossible. Hansen pleads for his subordinates to retrace their steps or they will “never live this down” and sensibly recommends that they save their results at least once a year in the future:

I am being besieged by these… The appropriate response is to show the curves for U.S. and global temperatures before and after McIntyre’s correction. Makiko doubts that his is possible because the earlier result has been ‘thrown away’. We will never live this down if we give such a statement. It must be possible to reconstruct the “before” result. Unfortunately this needs to be done soon as there are various writers with deadlines this afternoon. .. By the way, I think that we should save the results of the analyses at least once a year, so we will have a record of how they change.
"

hahahahaha. read the whole thing, it is very enlightening. the FOI emails flying back and forth between the Real Climate Team are an absolute hoot!

I especially laughed at Hansen saying that 1934 and 1998 couldnt have changed places as the warmest year because the mistake only affected the years after Y2K. for people who dont know the story, GISS changed all the pre-Y2K years and left the post-Y2K years alone. why? who knows.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

here is GISS v.2 raw

GISS v.3 homogemized. NB the change in the y axis scale

BEST graph and table

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.86
After quality control 0.91
After breakpoint alignment 0.79
Regional expectation during same months 0.85 ± 0.14
National average during same months 0.67 ± 0.13
Global land average during same months 0.78 ± 0.07


and the actual raw data (supposedly) with separate adjustments-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/38814-TAVG-Data.txt

that you could compare to the GISS raw data (supposedly) -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_425725180040_0_0/station.txt




enjoy!

Unfortunately -- those GISS raw links are now "not found".. hmmmmmmm... Guess I better move that USHCN station to the safe deposit box..

So why would BEST cut off the Station Data at 1990 ????? Because it stopped tracking the "modeled" regional data??? My graphs had data past 1990...

it was part of the Great Dying Off of thermometers in the early 90's. even if new data was available it was not being inputted.

interesting effect, eh?

I intuit that there may be other statistical artifacts present because of the loss of thermometers but I lack the statistical skill to demonstrate them.

Its rather amazing what the loss of 4000-6000 rural stations does to the weighting of the record. The loss creates a temperature rise of about 1.5 deg C. and its all artifact. deception.. US-CRN shows the deceptions well when compared to the statistical model of all HCN stations.

"In accordance with Service Change Notice 14-25 from the National Weather Service, NCEI has stopped providing data from the 72 Southwest Regional Climate Reference Network stations since June 1, 2014. The historical data for these stations will remain available. This change does not affect any station in the Climate Reference Network."

U.S. Regional Climate Reference Network

You will note that NOAA is now hiding other inconvenient data as well. this is getting way out of hand..

 

[Billy_Bob]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

here is GISS v.2 raw

GISS v.3 homogemized. NB the change in the y axis scale

BEST graph and table

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.86
After quality control 0.91
After breakpoint alignment 0.79
Regional expectation during same months 0.85 ± 0.14
National average during same months 0.67 ± 0.13
Global land average during same months 0.78 ± 0.07


and the actual raw data (supposedly) with separate adjustments-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/38814-TAVG-Data.txt

that you could compare to the GISS raw data (supposedly) -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_425725180040_0_0/station.txt




enjoy!

Just as fast as you post many of your graphs they disappear.. I keep getting "not found" errors when following links to original graphs.

 

[IanC]

I posted 2 "GW safe" places to move in a thread from 2012 --- Places where Global Warming doesn't exist..

Would love to see how Gloversville, NY looks in the Adjustocene Era today..

here is GISS v.2 raw

GISS v.3 homogemized. NB the change in the y axis scale

BEST graph and table

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.86
After quality control 0.91
After breakpoint alignment 0.79
Regional expectation during same months 0.85 ± 0.14
National average during same months 0.67 ± 0.13
Global land average during same months 0.78 ± 0.07


and the actual raw data (supposedly) with separate adjustments-
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Stations/TAVG/Text/38814-TAVG-Data.txt

that you could compare to the GISS raw data (supposedly) -
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/tmp/gistemp/STATIONS/tmp_425725180040_0_0/station.txt




enjoy!

Just as fast as you post many of your graphs they disappear.. I keep getting "not found" errors when following links to original graphs.

the GISS graphs almost always disappear after a few hours or days. sorry about that but it is a function of their website.

 

[IanC]

remember the Y2K problem with GISS? here is the timeline for those that are unfamiliar with the story. NASA: "Hide this after Jim checks it"

"
At 10:23 Hansen complained that he is being “besieged” by emails (either the FOI is incomplete or, in Hansen-world, a few inquiries constitute a siege) and decided to “do something”:

I am being besieged by emails and calls about this, so we need to do something promptly as there will be stories written today for publication tomorrow… By the way, Makiko, do you remember if we ever make any statement about how different years ranked for the U.S. temperatures? There are several demands that we issue a press release correcting our wrong results and declaring that 1934 is now the warmest year on record in the US and also that 4 of the 10 warmest years were in the 1930s and only 3 in the last 10 years.

In the late morning, Ruedy answered Leslie McCarthy (apparently the PR person) sycophantically describing Hansen’s tirade to Revkin as answering in the “clearest and most beautiful way”, before making various accusations against me:

Andy Revkin asked the same question and Jim’s answer below says it all in the clearest and most beautiful way… The blog you attached is a prime example of what gives bloggers a really bad name; somebody with no idea what he is talking about is spouting absolute nonsense, making no distinction between what is essential (the facts he conveniently omits) and what is pure noise (which he is concentrating on exclusively). ..
He finds it astounding that the years 1934 and 1998 reversed ranks, not remembering that the corrections only affected years 2000-2006, hence there is no possible connection there. By speaking of warmest year (rather than warmest year in the US time record), he successfully deceived people like Mark Taylor.”

Just before noon Aug 10, Hansen again complains about being “besieged”, but this time with a knot in his stomach as he’s just been told that the earlier results have been “thrown away”, making a before and after comparison impossible. Hansen pleads for his subordinates to retrace their steps or they will “never live this down” and sensibly recommends that they save their results at least once a year in the future:

I am being besieged by these… The appropriate response is to show the curves for U.S. and global temperatures before and after McIntyre’s correction. Makiko doubts that his is possible because the earlier result has been ‘thrown away’. We will never live this down if we give such a statement. It must be possible to reconstruct the “before” result. Unfortunately this needs to be done soon as there are various writers with deadlines this afternoon. .. By the way, I think that we should save the results of the analyses at least once a year, so we will have a record of how they change.
"

hahahahaha. read the whole thing, it is very enlightening. the FOI emails flying back and forth between the Real Climate Team are an absolute hoot!

I especially laughed at Hansen saying that 1934 and 1998 couldnt have changed places as the warmest year because the mistake only affected the years after Y2K. for people who dont know the story, GISS changed all the pre-Y2K years and left the post-Y2K years alone. why? who knows.

I misspoke, all the data was adjusted, not just the pre-Y2K.