An Interesting Post On Opposition

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:29 am

The "I don't understand it so it must have flaws" is of course an invalid argument.

As is the converse.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:40 am

Josh Cryer wrote:chiefio is weaseling over it. I doubt D'Alio will say much. I suspect both will continue pretending the analysis is meaningful. chiefio seems to think it's still relevant.

It is relevant in terms that Chief Posited:

What is the original uncorrected data. What are the correction. Which set of corrected data is to be used in a given situation.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:48 am

Josh Cryer wrote:What do you think of the Salem hypothesis MSimon? If engineers were harder to fool, why would so many of them be scientific creationists?

BTW Salem is absolutely wrong about professional societies policing orthodoxy.

Take the cause of stomach ulcers. The bacteria guy vs the stress folks. Or plate tectonics. And if I thought a little more probably lots of others.

It took the bacteria guy several decades to change minds. He was right and the stress guys were wrong.

BTW I worked with some Fundamentalist Christians - father and son - (not Creationists IIRC) who were absolutely first rate when it came to RF engineering.

And Josh. I'm in contact with Anthony Watts. If Chief doesn't give you any satisfaction we can run it by him.

You have definitely convinced me the graph is mislabeled. Error or bias? We shall see.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:51 am

As I like to say, go to the NCDC, it's not run by anyone who one could even call a climate-gater, because the temperature measurements are made by local weather guys. All NCDC does is archive it and pay people to digitize older records.

edit: RE: mislabeling, I don't think that D'Alio had any good reason to claim the data was raw, I think he saw a quaint looking website and just went from there. I searched the NYC NOAA page that it is linked from and saw *no* mention of those temperatures being raw.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:58 am

I just looked at the Chief's reply and I thought it quite reasonable.

And he makes the point I made. Up or down 3F is a lot of adjustment.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:05 am

I suppose I could take the same attitude that the CAGW folks aren't making honest errors.

In the case of Michael Mann and the hockey stick we know that to be a fact. Hide The Decline.

I'm not in the CAGW camp. But no matter. I insist on honesty. I will do what I can to see what you have found gets a proper hearing.

As I have said before my: integrity is worth more to me than supporting any particular position I hold. And I mean it.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:08 am

And for those of you who want to follow along:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13 ... an-cooked/

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:23 am

I feel as though the objection is being avoided. One thing at a time, right? I'm not arguing that the homogenization process is awesome and the best in the world. Well, I wasn't. I guess I kinda fell for it with my last response.

I don't think that it is fair that he "stealth edited" his post (without putting a note that it was edited), and in edit he doesn't really explain properly what is going on. GIStemp homogenized *lowers* the overall warming trend.

All because of UHI, etc.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:37 am

Josh Cryer wrote:I feel as though the objection is being avoided. One thing at a time, right? I'm not arguing that the homogenization process is awesome and the best in the world. Well, I wasn't. I guess I kinda fell for it with my last response. :P

I don't think that it is fair that he "stealth edited" his post (without putting a note that it was edited), and in edit he doesn't really explain properly what is going on. GIStemp homogenized *lowers* the overall warming trend.

All because of UHI, etc.

GIStemp homogenized *lowers* the overall warming trend.

In the case examined if you have got it right (I'm convinced enough to see that you get a fair hearing).

Is that true in all cases? Or in enough to shift the trend significantly? That is going to require looking at more than one case or even twenty. If there is significant error in a sample or two (30 cases per sample) the whole record has to be gone over.

And then what about stations still reporting that are left out of the record? Does that cause a shift?

There may be a case for rising temps. But the methodology is so shoddy that I'm unwilling to place my bet on outside the norm warming.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:45 am

I think it's true in the majority of cases simply because of the encroaching nature of civilization. That's one thing SurfaceStations.org does help illustrate. The Central Park Thermometer, for example... a whole city built around that guy (granted, the measuring device changed over time, but the location stayed the same).

cheifio posted a link to someones link of GISS with gifs of USHCN v1 and USHCN v2, blinking back and forth. In most cases either nothing happens, or the warming trend is lower. USHCN v2 even says that they lowered the warming trend .10 degrees (C) by improving their methods.

I told TallDave that I could concede that as they improve their methods more it could drop another .10 degrees. But I don't know if it could drop too much more than.

BTW, the reason I think it's important to point out that GIStemp homogenized lowers the warming trend is *specifically* because D'Alio links to the homogenized data as if that is representative of reality, therefore making it "look like" GISS is cooking the data when in fact they are normalizing it and trying to remove the warming that our civilization has created simply by waste heat.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:47 am

Josh Cryer wrote:I think it's true in the majority of cases simply because of the encroaching nature of civilization. That's one thing SurfaceStations.org does help illustrate. The Central Park Thermometer, for example... a whole city built around that guy (granted, the measuring device changed over time, but the location stayed the same).

cheifio posted a link to someones link of GISS with gifs of USHCN v1 and USHCN v2, blinking back and forth. In most cases either nothing happens, or the warming trend is lower. USHCN v2 even says that they lowered the warming trend .10 degrees (C) by improving their methods.

I told TallDave that I could concede that as they improve their methods more it could drop another .10 degrees. But I don't know if it could drop too much more than.

A warming trend within or lower natural variation argues against CO2 as the cause. Not proof of course.