A Climate Of Bad Code

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:36 pm

Helius wrote:
IntLibber wrote: Sorry, thats not how science works. AGW researchers are the ones making extraordinary claims, they are the ones with the burden of proof. All it takes to discredit their claims is one mistake to be pointed out.
So one bonehead researcher making one mistake discredits a whole established body of knowledge? c-mon.

If that one bonehead's work is cited and depended on by a whole subsequent series of papers produced by other people, YES, by all means.

Boneheaded moves:
a) the Yamal 12 dendro series, where 90%+ of the claimed signal of the blade of the hockey stick comes from ONE tree. Many of the most important alarmist papers depend on this Yamal data, which Briffa hid and refused to disclose for a decade.

b) Mann's hockey stick depends heavily on including the Tiljander series of data, BUT PRESENTED UPSIDE DOWN, a bonehead move that Tiljander's authors have repeatedly pointed out and requested Mann fix, to no avail. There are over a dozen of the Teams most important papers that depend on this upside down Tiljander.

c) Urban Heat Island: The surface station records in the US have been manipulated with adjustments. The alarmists claim they adjust them for UHI downward but when you compare the raw data to the adjusted data, what they do is they adjust old temps from early 20th century downward and recent late 20th century data upward.

d) Excluding rural surface stations. Starting in 1990, the AGW alarmists started removing 90% of the surface stations from the consolidated record, almost all of which are rurally located. Most of the remaining stations are either in urban areas or at airports, or otherwise located in violation of NOAA regulations. 90% of all US surface stations violate siting rules.

e) cherry picking overseas stations: Russia recently charged that CRU cherry picked urban surface stations across Siberia and excluded surface stations that were not subject to UHI.

f) manipulating other overseas surface stations records: both the New Zealand and Australian surface station records are now shown to be fraudulently represented in the IPCC report.

Ok, so now, at what point do you start to conclude that one more bonehead move is one too many and something is afoot?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:41 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:Do you question the reliability of the NCDC database?

(Note: before you answer, all of those weathermen who are against AGW helped produce this database, it wasn't just a "few" dozen people, it is thousands.)

The models are of course wrong and they will never be 100% "right." In science being wrong is part of the process.

The only data base I trust is the satellite data. And even that may be contaminated.

All the other data bases are derived in whole or in part from the CRU data. Which we have not got (other than the adjusted numbers).

I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

NCDC? Aren't they in the thick of the ClimateGate stuff? Yes they are.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/c ... m-tactics/

All that will satisfy me is a full AUDIT of the whole shebang by sceptics and believers. Checks and balances.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:09 pm

Now do I have anything against manual adjustments?

Of course not. They may be perfectly valid.

What I'm against is UNDOCUMENTED manual adjustments.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:10 pm

I don't see anything in there discrediting the NCDC in any way whatsoever. Do you have personal misgivings with the NCDC with regards to data allocation and representation? 'cause I'd like to hear them, since they would be a big deal.

(Note that GISS *and* CRU are derived from NCDC by and large.)

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:18 pm

Josh,

There are five stages of grief:

* 1. Denial and Isolation.
* 2. Anger.
* 3. Bargaining.
* 4. Depression.
* 5. Acceptance.

My guess is that you are still in stage one. But you could be in stage three. (one small error).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

I can't wait until you come to accept that you were misinformed.

From Casablanca:

http://www.destinationhollywood.com/mov ... p_01.shtml

You may be amused.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:19 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:I don't see anything in there discrediting the NCDC in any way whatsoever. Do you have personal misgivings with the NCDC with regards to data allocation and representation? 'cause I'd like to hear them, since they would be a big deal.

(Note that GISS *and* CRU are derived from NCDC by and large.)

But Josh. They were all in cahoots. Until it is sorted you got nothing.

E-mail Documentation Of The Successful Attempt By Thomas Karl Director Of the U.S. National Climate Data Center To Suppress Biases and Uncertainties In the Assessment Surface Temperature Trends

pielke

In the example I present below, the issue is the robustness of the surface temperature trend record. The three main groups that compile and analyze this information are NCDC (directed by Tom Karl), GISS (directed by Jim Hansen) and CRU (directed by Phil Jones).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/c ... m-tactics/

Any one working with Jones is suspect. There is then probable cause. Proof? Only a full up AUDIT can lead to guilt or exoneration.

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:24 pm

NCDC data is freely available in a raw state, if there was any misconduct on part of anyone with regards to the data (not personal squabbles as to who is on some irrelevant committee), it would be easily shown.

I think it is you who are in denial MSimon.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:32 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:NCDC data is freely available in a raw state, if there was any misconduct on part of anyone with regards to the data (not personal squabbles as to who is on some irrelevant committee), it would be easily shown.

I think it is you who are in denial MSimon.

It sure is possible. But if the NCDC data agrees with the CRU data it is suspect.

If NCDC only pertains to the USA it is quite possible it is uncontaminated (if you trust "Death Trains" Hansen). Which then points up the fact that the fiddles in Russia and Australia are significant.

OTOH if NCDC has been eliminating rural stations it is suspect. Why not remove urban stations?

And have you seen the status of the US Network?

http://www.surfacestations.org/

It ain't pretty.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:43 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:Do you question the reliability of the NCDC database?

(Note: before you answer, all of those weathermen who are against AGW helped produce this database, it wasn't just a "few" dozen people, it is thousands.)

The models are of course wrong and they will never be 100% "right." In science being wrong is part of the process.

Josh,

You are being naughty. Of course I question the reliability. This is science. It has to be verified. Especially after release of the ClimateGate e-mails and data.

Has it been verified?

Has the world wide data been verified? The Russians have complaints. Australia has been shown to be the victim of at least one fiddle.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:39 am

Josh Cryer wrote:NCDC data is freely available in a raw state, if there was any misconduct on part of anyone with regards to the data (not personal squabbles as to who is on some irrelevant committee), it would be easily shown.

I am SOOOO glad you just admitted this. Let's take a look shall we? It seems to be so easy, even a sixth grader can do it...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/p ... can-do-it/

Watch the video in its entirety.

Then, once you understand it, understand this: rather than fixing the UHI problem by adjusting urban temps downward, what the AGW alarmists do is ADJUST RURAL TEMPS UPWARD based on nearby (up to 1000 km away) urban heat islands temp records in a method called "homogenization".

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:56 am

http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/25/hans ... ent-138895

Funny thing, I used to think the NCDC database was only for US stations…but it actually covers the world.

and from the article:

Hansen’s downward adjustments of Peruvian temperature records by as much as 3 deg C is based on the presumptive quality of Peruvian “rural” sites. If one even spends 40 minutes examining the locations of these sites, any resemblance to rural USHCN sites disappears.

In addition, the failure of NOAA and NASA to update their records is notable. In some case, NOAA maintains up-to-the-hour records of sites which GHCN and NASA have not updated in decades. I counted 13 Hansen-rural sites in Peru.

http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/25/hansens-rural-peru/

What has been done is to adjust the past down.

Other commenters in the thread claim the same was done for Ecuador. Link provided.

What is the advantage of adjusting the past down? Fewer people will notice. You have to look at the records rather than just going on line to check the recent temps.

And of course you then homogenize all the various temp anomalies and come up with a global average. Further covering their tracks.

Adjusting Peru with graphs:
http://climateaudit.org/2008/02/24/the- ... isit-peru/

From the ClimateGate Papers: The trouble with Russia
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-18/clima ... dence.html

Evidence that the Russian fiddle was known as long ago as 2004 from the above link:

The allegation is supported by one of the leaked UAE emails, dated March 2004, from its former boss Phil Jones to Michael Mann, to wit:

"Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both (peer) reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL. Cheers, Phil."

Josh Cryer · Post by **Josh Cryer** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:12 pm

MSimon,

I typed this last night but my internet went down.

It sure is possible. But if the NCDC data agrees with the CRU data it is suspect.

It couldn't possibly be that CRU data simply agrees with NCDC?

If NCDC only pertains to the USA it is quite possible it is uncontaminated (if you trust "Death Trains" Hansen).

NCDC is worldwide.

OTOH if NCDC has been eliminating rural stations it is suspect. Why not remove urban stations?

NCDC doesn't eliminate anyone. Their temperature data is nothing but noise. Scientists have to figure out trends from that noise, analyzing everything to very minute details. Fortunately the NCDC has certified meteorologists who cover station histories to very good levels, making it easier for the scientists to figure out the truth.

GHCN might eliminate stations, but if you read the files, they will reconsider station elimination if there are verified reports, that, say, a town in Alaska was really 80 degrees F in the middle of winter, via a news paper article or some other verified outcome.

And have you seen the status of the US Network?

Yes, it was in flux, but the corrections made are satisfactory, and current measurements are in good standing (moving all of those stations from PM to AM really helped get rid of the noise in the trends).

http://www.surfacestations.org/

It ain't pretty.

It could be better. But, alas, civilization.

IntLibber · Post by **IntLibber** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:31 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:
OTOH if NCDC has been eliminating rural stations it is suspect. Why not remove urban stations?
NCDC doesn't eliminate anyone. Their temperature data is nothing but noise. Scientists have to figure out trends from that noise, analyzing everything to very minute details. Fortunately the NCDC has certified meteorologists who cover station histories to very good levels, making it easier for the scientists to figure out the truth.

GHCN might eliminate stations, but if you read the files, they will reconsider station elimination if there are verified reports, that, say, a town in Alaska was really 80 degrees F in the middle of winter, via a news paper article or some other verified outcome.

And have you seen the status of the US Network?
Yes, it was in flux, but the corrections made are satisfactory, and current measurements are in good standing (moving all of those stations from PM to AM really helped get rid of the noise in the trends).

OH geeze you really are a hopeless apologist. Guys this guy is a waste of time, he's just one more Hockey Team disinfo shill.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:49 pm

It could be better. But, alas, civilization.

But it is rather uncivilized to include bad data with the good.

What you do is throw out the high error data (according to site rating as found by actual inspection) and use the remainder to discern trends.

I believe an amateur has done that and has come up with the result of no trend.

You might like this. Models don't match measurements:

http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright (c) 2007 Royal Meteorological Society

Which is the question I have been asking for days now. Why isn't the predicted hot spot observed?

TallDave · Post by **TallDave** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:49 am

Updated Mark Twain:

There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics.

And then there are computer models.