Re: [asa] Fw: Temperature Records

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Dec 10 2009 - 09:32:04 EST

It seems the Darwin station is the smoking gun for data manipulation but it's Eschenbach's!

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/willis_eschenbach_caught_lying.php

BTW, here's the full details of the procedures used that show warming at Darwin.

http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

Don, back when I was debating Glenn concerning his analysis of the "bad" urban stations he complained about the Stevenson Shields. It seems that these were corrected for all along. So, should they be not be corrected for in Australia but corrected in the U.S.? Eschenbach said the raw data should be preferred because they "do no harm". Glenn seemed to think that the raw data did do harm. It seems that as long as the denialists can find their bogus cooling they will choose corrected or uncorrected data whenever it suits their agenda.

BTW, Eschenbach's cooked the data before see here when he manipulated Hansen's 1988 predictions:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/08/climate_fraudit.php

> The trick Eschenbach used was to use a single year for the baseline instead of the thirty year average that is normally used. Yes, it's another version of the disingenous baseline game that produced all those bogus "global warming ended in 1998" claims. Given the year to year variability of climate, by choosing the right year to use as a baseline you can manufacture almost any result you want.

It seems the denialists will do anything to hide the rise. I wonder if the physicist who used to post here and called for people going to jail will do the same now for Eschenbach.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

On Dec 10, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Iain Strachan wrote:

> I have begun to look into this, and I have to say I can't reproduce the figures given in the "smoking gun" article. I believe I have downloaded the data from the same source:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
>
> as given in the article (just before figure 5).
>
> There are two different streams I downloaded:
>
> "Raw GHCN data + USHCN corrections" (5 stations)
>
> This seems to correspond to the data in the chart in Figure 5. I don't know the meaning of USHCN corrections, but Eschenbach says it is the rawest data he has.
>
> The second option in the dropdown is
>
> "After homogeneity adjustment"
>
> which is what all the fuss was about.
>
> First off: I didn't find adjustments for all the stations - there was a single combined stream post 1963.
>
> I have imported all this data into Matlab, and plotted the result, which I have uploaded to PicasaWeb; you should be able to see it at:
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/IGD.Strachan/Darwin#
>
> The first picture in the album is my plot from Matlab. I plotted the long series from 1880 onwards in blue (station 1 (or zero?)) and the remaining four stations in different shades of grey. They are virtually the same as the baseline (except that they extend on to 2009). Over this, I have plotted the "homogeneity adjusted" sequence in red, as downloaded from the GISS website.
>
> I think you should be able to see that the adjustments for homogeneity from this dataset are minor in the extreme - to the extent that the plot obscures the underlying plot of the raw data (ok so I cheated a little by plotting the adjusted data in a thicker line).
>
> However, on the basis of this, there is NO evidence of creative adjustments for homogeneity.
>
> I also went to the AIS website http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx
>
> which Eschenbach seems to have used to display his graphs. I found I was unable to produce some of the features on those graphs (the thick black line used to show the adjustements supposedly added in). There didn't seem to be a button on the applet to allow me to do this.
>
> Moreover, I found two websites reporting on Eschenbach's article. The two other pictures in my Picasaweb album show what is given as figure 8 in both articles (though the image filename of one of them is figure 9 - but they appear as fig 8 in both).
>
> The two are subtly and disturbingly different; one has the adjusted trend data at an offset of 2 degrees from the other, which shows the adjustment line coinciding with the trend data (very nice illustration of supposed fiddling there!)
>
> As I say I have been unable to reproduce this data from the GISS website, where the adjustments don't seem to exhibit a trend that was not present in the unadjusted.
>
> I went into this with an open mind - if the claims of the article are true then there is something fishy going on. So I looked at the data, and I found no evidence of the "creative adjustment" in the article. I was prepared to be persuaded either way.
>
> Someone tell me I've done something wrong and where to find the data to reproduce Eschenbach's graphs. Until that happens, it looks like misinformation to me. not the first piece either; like the myth that walking to work produces more CO2 than driving.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
> Randy suggested we skeptics engage with the data. A friend (PhD geologist) sent me the following message, which illustrates in great detail how another skeptic has engaged with the data. One of his principal conclusions: "People who say that 'Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK' are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too." This is the kind of thing I suspected was going on all along (although things are apparently much worse than I suspected) and is the reason I proposed having all the data reinterpreted by a different set of scientists with different biases.
>
> Don
>
>
> Hi,
>
> You may find the info below of interest in assessing the validity of the temperature data used to document the history and extent of global warming. This is taken from some web postings by friends of mine.
>
> "Here's an "interesting" exposition of the methods used to cook the data re Global Warming. It's enough to make your blood boil."
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
>
> "The "homogenized" data from HADCRU, GCN, and GISS cannot be trusted. Period. The Emails, bad as they are, are a distraction. The Devil is in the data itself. They need to throw it all out, and start over, using only the sparse amount of reliable raw climate data that exists." Note: GISS and Michael Mann have been caught cooking other data long before Climategate.
>
> "This analysis is for a single station. If you consider the likely error range for this one station, then consider the likelihood of similar errors at the thousands of stations used for determining the Earth's "temperature," and what the combined effect of these errors are on the analysis, the only conclusion one can draw is that this data is totally useless for finding any meaningful result. Any actual change is simply buried in the noise."
>
>
>
> --
> -----------
> Non timeo sed caveo
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 10 09:32:50 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 10 2009 - 09:32:52 EST