Homogenize This

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:35 am

MSimon wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:Give me a link to this station dropping allegation, I could use something to blog about.
Go back to the map post. It is in there. With fookin maps. The map I posted was "after".

Edit: This is the danm map post. Go up and follow the link.

LOL! Sorry. I tested what he suggested, but it looks like caprice led me to choosing stations where his bias wasn't showing (US stations, EU stations). I chose some out in the middle of Siberia and found his discrepancy. Honest mistake.

I looked over GHCN v2 and looked over some stations and there are huge discrepancies between those stations and GISS, however, and I think I figured out where they come from. I will post about it after a confirmation.

Well that is shoddy practice isn't it? ALL methods that could affect the data MUST be disclosed or it is not science.

Including parsing software? I agree it would be nice if it was available, but I'm not sweating it over such a trivial thing. The raw data is raw. That is certain. Read the comments by (I believe) Michael over on Chiefio. He agrees with me.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:55 am

Josh,

I have subscribed to that thread at Chiefio and will see any thing you post. Thus my replies to your comments.

Thanks for the heads up though. Sometimes I miss things.

===

Parsing software too.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:05 am

Jonathan Drake needs to post his parsing and comparing software for station histories.

It is buggy.

(I wonder how much money I could make regularly debunking these sorts of things?)

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:20 am

Josh Cryer wrote:Jonathan Drake needs to post his parsing and comparing software for station histories.

It is buggy. ;)

(I wonder how much money I could make regularly debunking these sorts of things?)

About as much as I make from blogging.

Your best bet is to develop a reputation and capitalize on that.

I get asked every few months to write for a different publication. I'm making my reputation. So far no money.

If the climate cabal wasn't so secretive they would have more credibility. When it looks like you have something to hide people get suspicious.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:36 am

MSimon wrote:If the climate cabal wasn't so secretive they would have more credibility. When it looks like you have something to hide people get suspicious.

Well I am not going to hide anything.

Even if my code is embarrassingly atrocious.

Gavin claimed on RC that the number of station histories aren't cherry picked (I could find the comment but it was awhile ago) or "dropped." What I am doing so far is confirming his claim.

So do I believe Jonathan Drake or Gavin when they say something?

If I had contact info for Drake I would send off an email for his code. Gavin releases all of his (he uses USHCN and GHCN which are available already in a parsed format; the stuff I'm doing with the NCDC has no relation to GISS outside of reproducing NOAA data sets, to prove the veracity of NCDC to USHCN / GHCN conversion).

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:51 am

Josh Cryer wrote:
MSimon wrote:If the climate cabal wasn't so secretive they would have more credibility. When it looks like you have something to hide people get suspicious.
Well I am not going to hide anything.

Even if my code is embarrassingly atrocious.

Gavin claimed on RC that the number of station histories aren't cherry picked (I could find the comment but it was awhile ago) or "dropped." What I am doing so far is confirming his claim.

So do I believe Jonathan Drake or Gavin when they say something?

If I had contact info for Drake I would send off an email for his code. Gavin releases all of his (he uses USHCN and GHCN which are available already in a parsed format; the stuff I'm doing with the NCDC has no relation to GISS outside of reproducing NOAA data sets, to prove the veracity of NCDC to USHCN / GHCN conversion).

If they are not dropping stations out of the climate record Where are they going?

There was mention above of lots of stations. Why have they been dropped?

Well OK. Their records may be faulty. Then to compare apples to apples you have to drop them from earlier records (in so far as determining temps) goes.

Apples to apples.

My understanding is that most of the "warming" is in northern latitudes where stations have been dropped. Siberia for instance.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:11 am

MSimon wrote:If they are not dropping stations out of the climate record Where are they going?

The allegation that they're stopping at 1990 is because it appears that Jonathan did not account for stations moves around that time to better locations.

There was mention above of lots of stations. Why have they been dropped?

It appears that restructuring the network has led to better station locations and presumably better records.

Plus climatologists don't get the funding that meteorologists get, so having a nice network with stations in the middle of nowhere is not happening. (Meteorologists deal with weather therefore most of their stations are local, in urban areas and airports.)

Well OK. Their records may be faulty. Then to compare apples to apples you have to drop them from earlier records (in so far as determining temps) goes.

Fair enough. ccc-gistemp should allow you to do that, and see what the results are.

My understanding is that most of the "warming" is in northern latitudes where stations have been dropped. Siberia for instance.

Most of the warming is, as satellite records show. Note, that's the thing, satellite records follow surface records exquisitely, as far as the curve is concerned. The surface records are just warmer, but the curve is the same. So you can't really claim there is no warming in the northern latitudes unless you reject all of the records (including Spencer's).

The only legitimate conclusion you can make, rather than continuing with this line of trying to discredit the surface record, is to argue that the sensitivity isn't as bad as the IPCC says.

NASA agrees that that may be the case: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?req ... JCLI3461.1

(Though we don't know enough yet, of course.)

(Note this does not contradict my position in the past.)

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:10 pm

It appears that restructuring the network has led to better station locations and presumably better records.

I'd like to see a surfacestations.org type survey of the stations before I buy into "better".

As to the surface records following the satellite data:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ ... he_ti.html

...as D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th coldest in 31 years.

Even when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, they’re basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAA’s warm-biased data.

And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansen’s Sunday claim that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second warmest year overall and the Southern Hemisphere’s absolute warmest in 130 years of global instrumental temperature records without laughing hysterically? Especially considering that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year – 2009 -- to be tied with 2006 for the fifth warmest year on record.

I'd have to find it but I believe the surface stations are "warm" relative to satellite data. And yes. They follow along together. All that is required for that is to adjust the past down. Then everything tracks nicely and we have global warming.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:00 am

MSimon wrote:I'd have to find it but I believe the surface stations are "warm" relative to satellite data. And yes. They follow along together. All that is required for that is to adjust the past down. Then everything tracks nicely and we have global warming.

It's a wash. UAH (which has had problems in the record in the past) shows about .12 C / decade, while the surface record says .16 C / decade, and IPCC suggests .13 C / decade.

Interestingly, RSS (another satellite which "skeptics" don't like to reference) fits the surface temperature record more closely, at around .19 C / decade.

IPCC has it right (might be a tiny bit lower or higher), and you're not thinking things through. Just because scientists make their own temperature records that doesn't mean that one record represents the whole. It is all of the records combined that tell us what is going on.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 1:45 am

I'm comforted by that.

Scientists can make their own record.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:03 am

Oh my, what a BIG picture you have there MSimon!

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:10 am

IPCC has it right (might be a tiny bit lower or higher), and you're not thinking things through. Just because scientists make their own temperature records that doesn't mean that one record represents the whole. It is all of the records combined that tell us what is going on.

Too many shenanigans with the ground record.

Pachauri also admits to more than the glacier melting problem with the IPCC report. Full details not yet available.

So if Pachauri says the IPCC got it wrong...........

Early days yet. The UK government is starting with an investigation of CRU.

And if the EPA gets challenged in court over its finding there will be discovery. And they have already been sued. And the EPA finding is based on the IPCC report.....

And if the Republicans take the House in November (I'd give it about 50/50 at this time) there will be investigations.

Early days yet Josh.

And we have a paper which says that up to 1/2 the recent warming is due to known ocean current oscillations. Obviously work will need to be done to nail down the number better than the range of 5% to 50%.

And then there is the rebound from the Little Ice Age which I believe runs in the range of .1 deg/decade.

Between the two it may not leave much for CO2. i.e. it is almost all natural variation.

BTW the rate of CO2 rise for the last year or two has fallen off the trend line.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:13 am

KitemanSA wrote:Oh my, what a BIG picture you have there MSimon!

Is it messing up your page formatting?

If not it is acceptable. If it is messing up your formatting I'll fix it.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:31 am

MSimon wrote:I'm comforted by that.

Scientists can make their own record.

Yes, scientists make their own records, which is why they disagree, because they use different methods.

IPCC does not use "just" GISS numbers. IPCC does not use "just" UAH numbers.

You do realize that Spencer's record, which was verifiabily broken, was because he made it right?

The image is "960 x 720" and because the sidebar (on the left, with our names) is about 4-5 cm wide it does misalign for those who browse at a resolution of 1024x768 or lower.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Sat Jan 23, 2010 2:32 am

It does make me use the scroll bar, but in truth I don't much care; hense the winky face.