Re: [asa] Fw: Temperature Records

From: Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Dec 10 2009 - 10:21:25 EST

Hmmm.... seems I wasted an hour or so finding this out for myself!!

Still ... you can't beat "engaging with the data".

Iain

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>
> <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.
> <http://picasaweb.google.com/IGD.Strachan/Darwin#>
>
> 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
>
>
>

-- 
-----------
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 10:21:52 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 10 2009 - 10:21:52 EST