Eat that GW believers!

[Josh Cryer]

Suppose it is just the placebo effect?

That is still helpful. Another way to put it is that in some cases you can be healed by faith.

In a double blind it wouldn't show up.

If it is a placebo effect that's fine, but the fact is that you can sell distilled water and call it homeopathy and people will buy it. Showing that people aren't really rational when it comes to extraordinarily claims (which I believe is why so many people buy in to anti-AGW stuff).

[pfrit]

For some reason that reminds me of hypnotism. The AMA belives it is good therapy for a number of conditions, but it is impossible to do standard studies on it. You can't do a double-blind study on it. Both the participant and administrator know by definition who was hypnotised. And as far as the placebo effect, that is exactly how it works. The placebo effect on steroids. Very amusing when you think about it.

[Jccarlton]

Why you shouldn't trust NCDC data:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ ... he_ti.html
Frankly, at this point, the only dataset that I would trust is the weather report from daily newspaper, which are recorded on the days that the measurements were taken. No more of this "adjusting." Especially by people who have amply demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

[MSimon]

Catastrophic AGW is the extraordinary claim.

People do love their catastrophes though. And will do any thing to prevent them. Except spend money.

[MSimon]

Why you shouldn't trust NCDC data:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/ ... he_ti.html
Frankly, at this point, the only dataset that I would trust is the weather report from daily newspaper, which are recorded on the days that the measurements were taken. No more of this "adjusting." Especially by people who have amply demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991 with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to 1. That’s right, as Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65. “ And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic,” due to its unusually moderate summers.

I think he meant higher latitudes not elevations.

Smith also discovered that in California, only 4 stations remain – 1 in San Francisco and 3 in Southern LA near the beach, and rightly observed that:

“It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.”

I liked this one:

And 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.

So our best measuring system, satellites, say June 2009 was about average for the last 31 years and NOAA says second warmest in 130.

Despite the fact that it is acknowledged that 1934 and 1998 were about equally hot.

The wonders of homogenization never cease.


Josh,

See my point about comparing like to like? Or are you going to tell me that mountains and oceans will respond the same way to all the inputs that make our climate what it is?

Even if the records going back to 1900 are fine, what about the models?

====

I do believe satellites can measure global climate. Ground stations are too much influenced by micro climate issues.

[Josh Cryer]

Jccarlton,

Are you telling me NCDC, which provides raw scans for their whole station histories, should not be trusted? Are you saying that meterologists who made those readings over a century are part of the conspiracy? Tens of thousands of people?

No, you're using irrelevant innuendo to attempt to discredit the only archive of climate data we have.

Well fine, wait for CLARREO (and hope an engineer doesn't "forget" to remove the pryo safety so it can disconnect from the rocket).



MSimon,

See my point about comparing like to like? Or are you going to tell me that mountains and oceans will respond the same way to all the inputs that make our climate what it is?

I'm looking at the data and they're lying. I will prove it soon enough. I like to enjoy my nights, but I have alredy written software that parses the files to a suitable format. My code is very clear and concise and less than 50 lines in most cases. You will be able to understand it.

But you probably will still believe D'Aleo who has already shown himself to lack a robust analysis, over me who is going to show it all.

Where's D'Aleo's code?

Even if the records going back to 1900 are fine, what about the models?

The models have shown themselves to be better than the records in two cases, in fact, Spencer had to adjust how UAH does its temperature readings because of the models.

I do believe satellites can measure global climate. Ground stations are too much influenced by micro climate issues.

I think CLARREO will shut you guys up eventually, but it'll be quite awhile yet.

[Jccarlton]

Jccarlton,

Are you telling me NCDC, which provides raw scans for their whole station histories, should not be trusted? Are you saying that meterologists who made those readings over a century are part of the conspiracy? Tens of thousands of people?

No, you're using irrelevant innuendo to attempt to discredit the only archive of climate data we have.

Well fine, wait for CLARREO (and hope an engineer doesn't "forget" to remove the pryo safety so it can disconnect from the rocket).



MSimon,

See my point about comparing like to like? Or are you going to tell me that mountains and oceans will respond the same way to all the inputs that make our climate what it is?

I'm looking at the data and they're lying. I will prove it soon enough. I like to enjoy my nights, but I have alredy written software that parses the files to a suitable format. My code is very clear and concise and less than 50 lines in most cases. You will be able to understand it.

But you probably will still believe D'Aleo who has already shown himself to lack a robust analysis, over me who is going to show it all.

Where's D'Aleo's code?

Even if the records going back to 1900 are fine, what about the models?

The models have shown themselves to be better than the records in two cases, in fact, Spencer had to adjust how UAH does its temperature readings because of the models.

I do believe satellites can measure global climate. Ground stations are too much influenced by micro climate issues.

I think CLARREO will shut you guys up eventually, but it'll be quite awhile yet.

Are there any independent checks on the NCDC stuff? As far as I know the only independent study was the surfacestations.org website which found many discrepancies in the US surface station organization and station monitoring. Until we have absolute guarantees that the data are clean, the data has to be treated as dirty. At this point the only reliable source are those that have never passed the hand of the climate cabal and their centers like NCDC, GISS, CRU and NCAR. The only clean data is the original paper logs from each station, for each day. The only reasonable dataset that is accurate and untouched is, as I have stated, the local newspaper daily reports. That is, unfortunately what we are left with.
As for CLARREO, satellites can only measure what they are pointed at at the time they are orbiting. While they can measure things like infrared energy, they cannot measure temperature directly and have to calibrated to measured temperatures. But satellite data has proven to be more reliable than the tainted surface station data.
If there was something really catastrophically wrong with the climate the cabal's bad practices have made it nearly impossible to determine in the bad data and noise they have created. The climate cabal has created their own monster, but we all have to live with the consequences.
Joch, what I cannot understand why you still trust those people and the garbage they create. This is the crew that has bilked the western countries of millions of dollars and through their claims, generated bad policies that are affecting millions of people. We now know, by their own words, what they have done and the scale of their deceit. Frankly I cannot understand this need to hold on to something that no longer even has the illusion of science to support it. What is this need to believe that the human race is somehow destroying the planet?

[Josh Cryer]

Are there any independent checks on the NCDC stuff?

Yes, I independently checked it myself and I am writing software to show that raw USHCN = raw NCDC. Now, if you want me to OCR their images, then you're just someone who is in such denial I don't know what to tell you. I might see what I can do, in the distant future, about OCRing a random sample, but that's just a ridiculous level of ignorance you are portraying. Because that data was complied by meteorologists who have absolutely nothing to do with climatology. People who made records, in fact, long before climate change was even discussed outside of obscure papers.

As far as I know the only independent study was the surfacestations.org website which found many discrepancies in the US surface station organization and station monitoring.

No it didn't. The classifications fit those that NCDC station histories found. All it did was show scary pictures of certain stations to put doubt in the record. No where does SurfaceStations.org show that NOAA records were wrong.

Until we have absolute guarantees that the data are clean, the data has to be treated as dirty.

This coming from a side who can't even do proper data analysis, who embarrass themselves when they do it (see D'Aleo claiming Central Park data was raw when it was homogenized, see all of the many sites claiming that GISS provides raw data for US stations).

At this point the only reliable source are those that have never passed the hand of the climate cabal and their centers like NCDC, GISS, CRU and NCAR.

You cannot claim the NCDC is in the same group as the others, NCDC is meteorology, GISS, CRU, and NCAR are climatology. NCDCs job is to measure weather so people know what to wear, whether or not to stay inside, or take an umbrella. That job is done by tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of individuals (over the decades).

Actually, you can claim anything you want, but this particular claim puts you squarely in the denialist camp, because you're going deeper than homogenization, you're going to raw data compiled by many thousands of people, and that is truly bizarre and incoherent.

The only clean data is the original paper logs from each station, for each day. The only reasonable dataset that is accurate and untouched is, as I have stated, the local newspaper daily reports. That is, unfortunately what we are left with.

That is frick retarded. Sorry, censor me if you will, but you are saying that to trust the data you must OCR it *again* and do all the labor *again*, that's just insanity, sorry.

But the NCDC does provide it, so if you want to provide this record, please, by all means, do so. There's no guarantee from me that I will ever even attempt this. Mike over at Cheifio agrees that they correspond with the digitized record.

If there was something really catastrophically wrong with the climate the cabal's bad practices have made it nearly impossible to determine in the bad data and noise they have created. The climate cabal has created their own monster, but we all have to live with the consequences.

It's not the climatologists' fault that the meteorologists' records are not coherent over a long period of time. They get whatever data they can.

Joch, what I cannot understand why you still trust those people and the garbage they create.

Because I value honesty, and I find their side to be more honest than the other side.

Frankly I cannot understand this need to hold on to something that no longer even has the illusion of science to support it. What is this need to believe that the human race is somehow destroying the planet?

You are a delusional ignoramus. You can accept that climate change is happening without giving one darn iota about the environment. If you care about fellow human beings, however, you ought to want to do something about it.

[MSimon]

Uh Josh,

You sidestepped my question. Can a thermometer on the shore plus a thermometer in the jungle plus an offset adequately represent the climate on a mountain?

[Josh Cryer]

GISS attempts to do it by measuring light levels and albedo. It's all documented in their methodology papers and the source code is open and free for use.

[MSimon]

Yeah. The fact that the station measuring set up doesn't meet official quality standards is no proof they are in error.

And that is the truth.

What we need to do is to set up a series of properly calibrated and sited thermometers near (30 to 100 meters - but no closer or farther) each poorly sited thermometer along with wind speed and direction indicators and then see if we can tease the correct temperature data from the original from the data for the new thermometers. I think three to five years of monitoring should do the trick.

Then we can go back in history and adjust for land use modifications, UHI (which of course will vary depending on temperature wind speed and time of day. And we will have something.

Or we can accept that there is a +/- 1 to 2C error bar in the record and not get jumpy about averages that are off from the previously recorded average by less than 2 to 4C.

More reliable IMO is the movement of the frost line. People have real money riding on that and have had money on it for 200 years (or more).

The Burpee Seed Company probably has good climate records.

[Josh Cryer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Climate ... ce_Network

[Josh Cryer]

The curve fits with the satellite record:



Any biases would be immediately apparent. Unless you think that Spencer is in on it, too. And his whole downplaying the record is just a false flag so you don't know he's a real warmist.

[MSimon]

GISS attempts to do it by measuring light levels and albedo. It's all documented in their methodology papers and the source code is open and free for use.

Hmm. So they can predict vertical cells (heat pipes) over a mixed area with light levels and albedo?

Suppose there is not much rain one year and the vegetation browns. That can be predicted too?

Science is truly amazing.

[Josh Cryer]

Suppose there is not much rain one year and the vegetation browns. That can be predicted too?

Precipitation is accounted for. Read the papers.