Hahaha, this is priceless: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the- ... ecord.html
Paper here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf
(I linked it before but never did notice the acknowledgements, haha.)
SurfaceStations.org reveals cooling bias with stations.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
SurfaceStations.org reveals cooling bias with stations.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
Re: SurfaceStations.org reveals cooling bias with stations.
Actually, what they are saying just makes things worse if you are trying to obtain accurate and reliable data . One thing you have to maintain when collecting data is consistancy. You use the same method, the same way over and over, with the same calibrated instruments. That way you remove as much variability as possible. Changing the instrument and location is fine if all you are interested in is daily weather. For climate research it just muddies the waters even more than they have been already.Josh Cryer wrote:Hahaha, this is priceless: http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the- ... ecord.html
Paper here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushc ... al2010.pdf
(I linked it before but never did notice the acknowledgements, haha.)
Watts from who the data was derived (what? they were incompetent to get it themselves?) has a few critiques of the paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/r ... aggerated/
And he promises a full paper in due course.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/r ... aggerated/
And he promises a full paper in due course.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am
His critiques are mostly handwaving and innuendo.
The part that is especially egregious is the lie that rural stations are biased by urban, when in fact urban stations are homogenized by rural.
As the paper points out, doing data analysis is important. Just taking pictures isn't going to achieve anything.
I do think Watts should have been part of the review, even if he isn't a phd, simply because it would have bolstered the evidence and he would have had to concede that the temperature record is reliably improved with homogenization methods.
The part that is especially egregious is the lie that rural stations are biased by urban, when in fact urban stations are homogenized by rural.
As the paper points out, doing data analysis is important. Just taking pictures isn't going to achieve anything.
I do think Watts should have been part of the review, even if he isn't a phd, simply because it would have bolstered the evidence and he would have had to concede that the temperature record is reliably improved with homogenization methods.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
The paper will be coming out in due course.Josh Cryer wrote:His critiques are mostly handwaving and innuendo.
The part that is especially egregious is the lie that rural stations are biased by urban, when in fact urban stations are homogenized by rural.
As the paper points out, doing data analysis is important. Just taking pictures isn't going to achieve anything.
I do think Watts should have been part of the review, even if he isn't a phd, simply because it would have bolstered the evidence and he would have had to concede that the temperature record is reliably improved with homogenization methods.
====
You might like this:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... s-say.html
Support for CAGW is falling faster in Britain than it is in the US. I have my work cut out for me.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Josh Cryer
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am