Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
hairykrishna said:
You're the one that's asserting they are odd with no explanation for why you think they're odd. Your assertion earlier that they don't look random enough for your liking basically makes me think that the problem is that you don't understand the difference between systematic and random errors.
There are a couple of large, well documented, sources of systematic error in the land measurements. Before these things are changed the land meausurements all have a shift which needs to be corrected for. After these things are changed there's generally only very small, random errors to correct. Those are the reasons. If you want to look in more detail feel free to review the large body of published work associated with the adjustments.
[cough]There are a couple of large, well documented, sources of systematic error in the land measurements. Before these things are changed the land meausurements all have a shift which needs to be corrected for. After these things are changed there's generally only very small, random errors to correct. Those are the reasons. If you want to look in more detail feel free to review the large body of published work associated with the adjustments.
HadCrut4 70 areas of concern about data quality and accuracy
[/cough]
Jinx said:
The chances of me shelling out $8 for that are zero.People with more time on their hands who have looked at the analysis in his thesis, which that report is based on, discovered that he highlights problems with stations in the raw data set which are already excluded from the adjusted data set for failing quality control.
hairykrishna said:
The chances of me shelling out $8 for that are zero.
People with more time on their hands who have looked at the analysis in his thesis, which that report is based on, discovered that he highlights problems with stations in the raw data set which are already excluded from the adjusted data set for failing quality control.
Do you think the re-analysis of the paper covers all 70 of the problems or have a couple been cherry picked as "excluded" from the adjusted data set and therefore the rest of the problems have been ignored (unless you can point me to some better sources)?People with more time on their hands who have looked at the analysis in his thesis, which that report is based on, discovered that he highlights problems with stations in the raw data set which are already excluded from the adjusted data set for failing quality control.
We know the majority of the data is bad (most of the older data was not designed for climate monitoring) and attempts to make "better data" by adjusting bad data turns the set into a reconstruction and should increase the error bars (which are frequently absent in the literature) . As such the consequences of any adjustments and not just the adjustments themselves need to be published with the reconstructions and not just left to others to identify. Whilst i can find explanations for "infilling" and adjustment there is very little discussion on the consequences of this infilling and that the infilling itself can create/flatten trends (hence the error bands should expand to cover both possibilities) .
Being blind to the limitations of the data because it fits your theory is as bad as ignoring data that contradicts it.
It's hard to point to something that addresses the '70 problems' without knowing what the 70 are. I'm not giving the bloke $8 and I can't be arsed to trawl his whole thesis. Making a big deal about stations with quality issues when those stations are already excluded for quality issues seems such a basic error that it doesn't seem worth the effort to find the others he's made.
The methodology for adjustments and effect of adjustments is all published. I don't really see what else you want them to do.
The methodology for adjustments and effect of adjustments is all published. I don't really see what else you want them to do.
Of course the Berkely Earth group (http://berkeleyearth.org/) were skeptical about the instrumental datasets as well, so they set about investigating them and producing a dataset of their own. ISTR that, at the time, climate skeptics were quite positive about a project run by climate skeptics to produce a temperature dataset of their own. ... until of course it turned out that the BEST dataset was in good general agreement with GISTEMP and HadCRUT etc.
Nice to see this place hasn't changed much though. The same old canards... ;o)
Nice to see this place hasn't changed much though. The same old canards... ;o)
ludo said:
Of course the Berkely Earth group (http://berkeleyearth.org/) were skeptical about the instrumental datasets as well, so they set about investigating them and producing a dataset of their own. ISTR that, at the time, climate skeptics were quite positive about a project run by climate skeptics to produce a temperature dataset of their own. ... until of course it turned out that the BEST dataset was in good general agreement with GISTEMP and HadCRUT etc.
Nice to see this place hasn't changed much though. The same old canards... ;o)
Is that the Greenland models they did?Nice to see this place hasn't changed much though. The same old canards... ;o)
ludo said:
BEST is a global mean surface temperature dataset, like GISStemp and HADCRUt. I can see why you would want to change the subject though ;o)
Who's changing the subject? I simply asked a question as to which you were talking about! No subject changed involved in that, is there?Now I see you were referring to a dataset called 'BEST'.
ludo said:
"Is that the Greenland models they did?" is changing the subject. AFAICS it has nothing to do with BEST or HadCRUT (neither of which is a model, and neither is specific to greenland)
Clearly incapable of understanding a simple question...Edited by ludo on Friday 15th February 14:49
ludo said:
O.K. so you can't justify the relevance of the question.
Seriously? Are we doing this? I ask you a simple question about which dataset you were referring to. Last one I had seen from Berkeley was related to Greenland.I even then posted that I realised after that you were referring to a dataset called 'BEST'...
Yet you still come out with this BS and accuse me of trying to change the subject?
Go back to whichever hole you crawled out of.
Ah, I might have guessed, there was a (rather flawed) WUWT post about Greenland temperatures extracted from the BEST dataset. Yes, same dataset, but (i) it isn't a model and (ii) without reference to a particular climate skeptic blog article it isn't clear how I was supposed to work out what you were referring to!
Yes. That is the dataset. The one produced by a group of scientists skeptical of the instrumental records (such as HadCRUT) who made their own dataset and found that it closely reproduced the results of the existing datasets, using a different (independently developed) method. That shows that the claims that HADCRUT or GISSTEMP are biased are without much foundation.
Yes. That is the dataset. The one produced by a group of scientists skeptical of the instrumental records (such as HadCRUT) who made their own dataset and found that it closely reproduced the results of the existing datasets, using a different (independently developed) method. That shows that the claims that HADCRUT or GISSTEMP are biased are without much foundation.
ludo said:
Ah, I might have guessed, there was a (rather flawed) WUWT post about Greenland temperatures extracted from the BEST dataset. Yes, same dataset, but (i) it isn't a model and (ii) without reference to a particular climate skeptic blog article it isn't clear how I was supposed to work out what you were referring to!
Yes. That is the dataset. The one produced by a group of scientists skeptical of the instrumental records (such as HadCRUT) who made their own dataset and found that it closely reproduced the results of the existing datasets, using a different (independently developed) method. That shows that the claims that HADCRUT or GISSTEMP are biased are without much foundation.
Right...now we're on the same page, finally...Yes. That is the dataset. The one produced by a group of scientists skeptical of the instrumental records (such as HadCRUT) who made their own dataset and found that it closely reproduced the results of the existing datasets, using a different (independently developed) method. That shows that the claims that HADCRUT or GISSTEMP are biased are without much foundation.
I had seen it elsewhere other than WUWT, can't remember where though. I've been through most of the Berkeley reports too etc.
I simply asked what you were referring to as I wasn't clear on it until the second ish post...There was no attempt to change the subject.
Fair enough. However you said "Greenland MODEL" not dataset, and I did provide a URL that you could follow to find out what I was talking about. BE don't produce a Greenland dataset, they do (for the users convenience) provide a file containing regional summary data extracted from BEST.
Do you agree that climate skeptic scientists (Berkeley Earth) independently reproducing the results obtained by HADCRUT, using their own independently developed method, is evidence that HadCRUT is not biased or substantially flawed?
Do you agree that climate skeptic scientists (Berkeley Earth) independently reproducing the results obtained by HADCRUT, using their own independently developed method, is evidence that HadCRUT is not biased or substantially flawed?
stew-STR160 said:
I simply asked what you were referring to as I wasn't clear on it until the second ish post...There was no attempt to change the subject.
Actually, that doesn't tally. In my first post I wroteludo said:
Of course the Berkely Earth group (http://berkeleyearth.org/) were skeptical about the instrumental datasets as well, so they set about investigating them and producing a dataset of their own. ISTR that, at the time, climate skeptics were quite positive about a project run by climate skeptics to produce a temperature dataset of their own. ... until of course it turned out that the BEST dataset was in good general agreement with GISTEMP and HadCRUT etc.
Given that I had given both a URL and specified the dataset by name, I can't see how I could have made it any clearer what I was referring to. Especially as you say:stew-STR160 said:
I've been through most of the Berkeley reports too etc.
How could you go through the Berkeley reports without knowing that BEST is their equivalent of GISSTEMP and HADCRUT? It is the product for which they are known.ludo said:
Anybody willing to agree that climate skeptic scientists (Berkeley Earth) independently reproducing the results obtained by HADCRUT, using their own independently developed method, is evidence that HadCRUT is not biased or substantially flawed?
Yes but it's really a side issue to the main argument isn't it?Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff