NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
posted at 8:48 am on December 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
At least it did in Australia, where Willis Eschenbach took a look at the raw data to determine what effect the “homogenization” process at the NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network had on the temperature readings. Like alchemists of old, it transformed decades-long declines in temperature into rapid upward spikes completely unsupported by any of the underlying data. Eschenbach calls this “the smoking gun at Darwin Zero,” and it demonstrates further why the East Anglia CRU (which relied on NOAA/GHCN) conspired to destroy evidence requested in a Freedom of Information demand — and why CRU may have destroyed its raw data archives (via Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy):
The second question, the integrity of the data, is different. People say “Yes, they destroyed emails, and hid from Freedom of information Acts, and messed with proxies, and fought to keep other scientists’ papers out of the journals … but that doesn’t affect the data, the data is still good.” Which sounds reasonable.
There are three main global temperature datasets. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The three groups take raw data, and they “homogenize” it to remove things like when a station was moved to a warmer location and there’s a 2C jump in the temperature. The three global temperature records are usually called CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. All three produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data. …
Then I went to look at what happens when the GHCN removes the “in-homogeneities” to “adjust” the data. Of the five raw datasets, the GHCN discards two, likely because they are short and duplicate existing longer records. The three remaining records are first “homogenized” and then averaged to give the “GHCN Adjusted” temperature record for Darwin.
To my great surprise, here’s what I found. To explain the full effect, I am showing this with both datasets starting at the same point (rather than ending at the same point as they are often shown).
Figure 7. GHCN homogeneity adjustments to Darwin Airport combined record
YIKES! Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celcius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celcius per century. And the adjustment that they made was over two degrees per century … when those guys “adjust”, they don’t mess around. And the adjustment is an odd shape, with the adjustment first going stepwise, then climbing roughly to stop at 2.4C. …
Intrigued by the curious shape of the average of the homogenized Darwin records, I then went to see how they had homogenized each of the individual station records. What made up that strange average shown in Fig. 7? I started at zero with the earliest record. Here is Station Zero at Darwin, showing the raw and the homogenized versions.
Figure 8 Darwin Zero Homogeneity Adjustments. Black line shows amount and timing of adjustments.
Yikes again, double yikes! What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend? And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven? What’s up with that?
Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.
Or, in the Climategate parlance, hide the decline. If what Eschenbach says is true — and he’s looking at the raw data — Australia hasn’t warmed at all, except in the fevered imagination of the GHCN. Did the CRU use the raw data or adjusted data to reach its conclusions? Since they’ve destroyed their raw data, we won’t ever know. But what we do know is that the “adjusted” data looks nothing like the raw data, and the rapid warming is as artificial as the thoroughly discredited “hockey stick” graph that started the AGW hysteria in the first place.
Is the Earth warming? Yes, since 1650, as Eschenbach reports. Is that warming trend natural? Perhaps, perhaps not. In order to make that determination, we need a completely transparent data set, one that is free of “adjustments” from advocates masquerading as scientists. As long as the current set of alchemists remain in control of the raw data, their work should be considered completely unreliable.
Update: I changed the headline to accurately represent where the homogenization occurred.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
What if heads resulted 60% of the time? Couldn’t the coin still be biased towards tails?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 6:04 PM
only if you assume a steady state.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 6:08 PM
What is the right temperature or even the right CO2 level?
CWforFreedom on December 9, 2009 at 6:11 PM
On a million flips? No.
You don’t have to assume anything. It’s only interesting, IMO at least, if you are in a “steady state” because then you don’t have to account for trends when wondering what it means. With a decade of stagnant temps, it is easy to interpret. In fact, that’s the only reason we are even talking about record highs versus record lows… in any other context they just wouldn’t be interesting.
DaveS on December 9, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Oh puleeze. Stop comparing this temp data to a million coin flips.
Face it, even if a decade is cooler than average, that decade can experience more record highs than record lows. Any other answer you give about this will be wrong.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 6:20 PM
who’s comparing temp data to a million coin flips? That’s two completely different scales you’re using. One is a dichotomous or binary outcome (heads=0, tails=1)the other is a continuous scale outcome–temperature.
ted c on December 9, 2009 at 6:31 PM
What if the Decade experiences both record Highs and Record Lows. Such as Snow in Baghdad for the first time in 100 years?
What if you have Glaciers disappearing in the Alps but glaciers growing in record numbers in other places. What if one part of Antarctica is experiencing a Warming Trend but on a whole Antarctica is experiencing a cooling trend or one part of Antarctica is melting but Antarctica’s Ice Mass is increasing?
Holger on December 9, 2009 at 6:32 PM
Maybe I’m missing your point. Are you trying to say that what is significant is the amount of time a measurement varies from a projected average? If so we are on different channels because my point has to do with how well the calculated value actually represents the system (is your value a true average?).
These numbers are only “interesting” when used to reflect something. If all we are doing is putting numbers in line and calulating an arithretic mean…well, not so interesting.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Do a t-test on that one.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 6:35 PM
I guess I am confused.
Why is there ANY data manipulation? Just do not put the sensors by AIR CONDITIONERS and PARKING LOTS.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations
These temperature charts are a huge scam, just like most polls, massage the data until you get what you want.
uber-con on December 9, 2009 at 6:35 PM
Because in many cases, the ac’s and the roads and the trees didn’t exist when the sites were placed. That is what is so insidious about this topic. It is the fact that the bias has developed slowly over time. Also, that it IS a bias, not just a variability, and it is not uniformly distributed.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 6:38 PM
These links suggest significant upward adjustment of the data supposedly is due in large part to world war 2 bombs in 1941 followed buy a new and different weather station at the same location. Ok, that is interesting.
Now look closely at the data graph again. The data adjustment clearly begins in 1930 not 1941. Gradually start adjusting for a new station 10 years before it is built?
Resolute on December 9, 2009 at 6:46 PM
And that moving a sensor a couple of hundred feet, or even yards, is going to change its Temp readings by a couple of degrees? Especialy when averaged out over time? Does that not discount basic convection and conduction?
What is interesting in the above data, is that when different data sets were available, they were almost identical… right up until they started “norming” the data. So the “siteing” problems… or different sensor types… seemed to give minimal differences… yet that is the “reason” that the data is now normed….
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 6:49 PM
great arugments here but I’m not seeing anything about man caused. It doesn’t matter if it is getting warmer or colder. The important part is if it is being caused by man. That little tidbit always seems to get lost in the fight on warmer or colder.
Is it man caused and how do you know?
The rational of it starting to get warmer during the industrial age could be coincidence. Was the little ice age caused by mans lack of industry?
RagTag on December 9, 2009 at 6:51 PM
I’m actually arguing that the surface data is corrupt, and the current method of ‘adjustment’ only compounds the problem. Without determining an explicit cause and determining a ‘specific value’ for that point error, you can’t have any faith in adjustments.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Looks like another great conspiracy in the scientific community, no different than evolution “theory”. So here’s the big question- when will right thinking scientific observers start tearing apart other scandals, such as the vaccine scandal? Listen to what Jenny McCarthy has to say- vaccines cause autism and she’s sure of it based on extensive research done on Google.
These scientists are out of control and we need better oversight of their activities.
bayam on December 9, 2009 at 6:57 PM
Someone stated it earlier. “Global Warming” is definitely Mann made. As for the causes of climate variability, the best scientific answer is “we don’t know”.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Yes, he is charging wrongdoing… based on his reading of the Raw Data…
“IF” you are adding 2+ degrees to todays data, you are saying either the measurments of the past, or todays measurments, are flawed.
Problem is that Thermometers have been pretty accurate in the timeframe we are talking about, and todays instruments are even more accurate.
So, personaly, I’d have to agree with the author… unless you have a VERY good reason to “fix” data, then you don’t do it, especialy when that very “fix” slews your data to the point where its as great, or greater, than the “change” in data you are complaining about in the first place.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Ed, did you realize that NASA has consistently stated that 80% to 90% of the effects of global warming result in higher ocean temperatures, while land temperates are far less predictable? I’m not questioning your scientific credentials which I’m sure are formidable, but are you sure that you’re asking the right questions?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming.html
“If you look at the ocean data, there has been a very clear acceleration in sea level rise,” explains Willis. “At the beginning of the last century, sea level was rising by less than 1 millimeter (0.04 inches) per year; mid-century it was 2 millimeters (0.08 inches) per year and now it’s 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is directly caused by the increasing temperature of the planet.”
bayam on December 9, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Ha I was about to start in on you until I noticed the second n. Very good.
RagTag on December 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM
These “scientists” bear a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the courtroom, the case has to be made beyond a reasonable doubt–or the defendant gets acquitted. The same really goes here. The prosecution’s position is that the defendant, man, is guilty of causing AGW. They’ve manipulated data, skewered skeptics, hidden results, failed to handle evidence properly and have engaged in both jury and witness tampering.
I submit to my fellow thinkers here at HotAir that the left absolutely holds both the courts and science up as deities. Let’s make them live up to their own rules. If man is guilty of AGW, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, then man walks.
Thoughts?
ted c on December 9, 2009 at 7:07 PM
The way I read the “hide the decline” was that the proxy data didn’t match the raw data and the divergence stated about the time of the industrial age. They adjusted the raw data to match the proxy and because this adjustment was “man made” they concluded that GW must therefore be man made.
So my understanding is that the raw data doesn’t show warming until you fudge it to match the proxy model. If this is the case why should we even believe the proxy models?
RagTag on December 9, 2009 at 7:10 PM
The left absolutely holds both the courts and science up as deities only if they agree with the leftest predetermined position. Remember they are attacking any science position that does not align with the predetermined AWG position.
RagTag on December 9, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Not true, but as an independent, I hold the courts above rule of the mob and scientists above bloggers. I trust researchers at U of Michigan and Notre Dame (which is strongly independent) more than I trust your ability to understand and interpret this science.
bayam on December 9, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Just for fun, I just “flipped a coin” 1000000 times, 5000 times. In 5000 1000000-flip tries, the biggest deviance from P(heads) = .5 was .0018 (meaning 500000 +/- 180).
DaveS on December 9, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Especialy when the proxy models are based on tree rings…
Sorry, but there are just WAY too many variables besides the Temp which change tree growth.
Heck, do they even factor in precipatation for those years? You’d think they would… but how would they KNOW the amount of precipitation for those unknown Siberian years?
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 7:18 PM
Wish I could claim to have thought of that, but I read it here from another HA poster.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 7:21 PM
No, it’s true and you contradict yourself in your rebuttal. If you hold the courts of law above rule of the “mob” and “scientists” above bloggers, then you believe that a social strata both exists and represents some degree of truth. It’s apparent in this instance that this stratification has failed.
Moreover, your position is not supported by our court system. If this position were right an appropriate–then the jury of 12 “laypeople” or “peers” would be wholly inappropriate, however, it is not.
I would submit to you that scientists, just like bloggers and the courts bear the burden of proof to presenting information that would affect us all, in a fashion we can all understand. By doing so, it neither denigrates the lay person, nor elevates the scientists but maintains the interrelatedness of our society particularly in matters of this great importance where the outcome (cap and tax) would gravely affect us all.
ted c on December 9, 2009 at 7:21 PM
No, they had a chart showing temperatures over a long period of time, and at the end of the proxy reconstruction in the mid-to-late 20th century it diverges from actual measured temperatures–it declines there, partly due to some smoothing algorithms they used, if I understood correctly… so from that point on they graphed the actual measured temperatures. It doesn’t involve any changing data.
However, there are other emails that are problematic in that they suggest that they WERE tweaking data to minimize hotspots they didn’t like and to exaggerate cold spots that they did like. That is not related to the “hide the decline” comment, which I think is a bit of a red herring and a waste of time to discuss, but it seems to have resonance (if for the wrong reasons) so whatevs.
DaveS on December 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM
This is how I had read the reports as well. However, they also chose and ran different algorithms for different time periods and spliced the results together to look like a continuous sequence. I recall reading about truncating outputs by running certain sections of code only on data up to a specific point.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM
So, you see no problem with changing the methodology by which you attain data, yet use that in the same chart?
And the reason you change your methodology, is because you don’t like the results?
Does it not indict the methodology you used for past data, if they could not use it for current Temp readings? I mean, if it does not reflect todays reality, then how can you trust that same method to give you data on the past?
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 7:32 PM
There are hundreds of billions of dollars in play on both sides of the “Climate Science” question.
What began as a simple “I care about animals” back in the 1940′s/50′s, developed into “save the animals”, which developed into save the estuary/tidal pool etc. etc. ’til we get to the huge mega-million-dollar political-influencing groups we see today for just about every “cause” you can think of — every single one of which is now a huge money-machine, and political influence peddler (lobbyist), buying senators’ and congressional votes, governors’ favors, regulatory agencies, just like the big corporations and “interest groups”.
Each of these “movements” were pretty-much independent and sustained through donations through mail-order fund-raising. It was all small-potatoes, with a lot of “feel-good” stuff for the people involved.
They grew at a slow rate, but they grew steadily. With more and more people living in the cities, divorced from the REAL planet, these groups became their only source of “real” information about animals, land, trees, fish, — in other words — outside. Their “donors” were pounding money on the groups like there was no tomorrow. Remember Marlin Perkins? He was one of the first.
In the early 1960′s Los Angeles, California, which was was built in a basin, trapped smoke, fog, and just about anything else in the air for days at a time. It still does. It’s a BASIN, after all! It was growing by leaps and bounds, and California was the place to be — jobs, affordable housing, the ocean, the mountains, deserts, everything you could want.
And, thanks to that growth, the LA Basin got worse and worse and worse air every year. People were starting to get sick from it. The air was bright dirty brown-orange and it burned your eyes. 100 miles away to the north, you could see it spreading out over the Pacific until the winds were right and blew it away. It was the worst city in California, and still is for air quality. No place else ever even came close.
The “science” of Environment Science was born in the California University System, and almost all of it can be directly traced back to the 1960s LA Basin.
Well.
Now you’ve got “Environmental Scientists” graduating from the California Universities, and they were hired by the State of California, various cities, counties, ag districts, etc. all over California. And they wrote reports and papers and conducted studies and generally spent billions of dollars and didn’t accomplish very much, generally speaking.
Oh — they had some minor successes, to be sure, BUT– if they were so good, how come they still have Stage 1 Smog Alerts in the LA Basin?
And the schools kept pumping out the Environmental Scientists, and soon, there were no jobs for them — too many graduates, not enough jobs. Sooo things kinda spread to Oregon, then Washington, and the Federal Government took notice and thought that an Environmental Protection Agency was a good idea, and hired even more of the “Environmental Scientists”.
Unfortunately for everyone……..nobody ever thought to check on the veracity of all those reports, and papers, and studies, and an awful lot of stuff slipped through the cracks. No supervision, no structure, no rules and scads of money for “The Environment” became The Rule for over 30 years.
With the Federal and State governments involved, of course these kids were asked to help make laws protecting The Environment. And the laws came out. Those were the laws which killed Oregon’s logging industry, Washingotn’s fishing industry; California’s “emisssions laws” opened the door to 67 different grades of regular gasoline to control “pollution”; catalytic convertors, air-pumps, and the most horrible gas mileage ever. Not to mention “oil drilling”. The cost to the country was enormous!
BUT — it was for The Environment. The same Environment that nobody had any sort of base-line from, which would provide at least a place to START with all the regulations, and, eventually determine WHICH ONES worked and which did not. We STILL don’t have that luxury.
Now….all of a sudden some genius discovers that there’s LOTS of money in “Environmental Equipment”: scrubbers, and big pumps, and filtration units, and oil-suckers, and just about anything you could think of. If it was for The Environment, you could sell it.
Wellll…..if there’s enough money involved, you can “convince” any legislature you want to pass any laws you want with a little … um … “influence”.
Now, “The Environment” was BIG business. And whomever could influence the EPA Regulations, could sell their equipment, or software, or remediation services to TONS of people who HAD to buy it ’cause the EPA said so.
Do ya get it yet? The whole frickin’ house of cards is as corrupt a a two-week-dead dog.
And THEN they discovered that wonderful idea…..Global Warming. And they cooked the books, and then cooked ‘em some more, and REALLY BIG BOYS came out to play. Hundreds upon hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for solar, and wind, and chemicals, and alcohol, and algae, and books, and software, and regulations, ad nauseam.
And not ONE of them knew if what they were doing had ANY basis in fact. Ever. But they made some pretty good-lookin’ stuff up!! Who’s gonna check on them? They’re saving our whole Planet and everybody on it!! Just ask ‘em, they’ll tell ya.
And……here we are. They finally got caught. And they will do ANYthing to keep that gravy-train rolling for them, for their pocket-legislators, and newspapers, and TV guys. It’s FREE MONEY, guys! It’s wrong as all-hell, but its still free money.
May they all burn in Hell.
And now you know.
I was there for it all.
Farmer on December 9, 2009 at 7:43 PM
He didn’t say that he didn’t have a problem with it. He said that he thought it was a waste of time to discuss the “hide the decline” comment.
I completely disagree.
These buttheads created believers with their hockey stick graphs. And now they’re being forced to admit that one of their hockey sticks stopped graphing tree ring thickness and started graphing temperature in the 1960s in order to make the hockey stick look better.
That’s fraud regardless of how one looks at it. And fraud isn’t a waste of time to discuss.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 7:43 PM
There are issues specific to the data Eschenberg looked at that don’t fit your assumptions (measurements getting more accurate, etc…). That might just have something to do with why he picked the example he did.
Eschenberg is shamelessly exploiting his audience’s unfamiliarity with ordinary statistical methods to trump up a bogus charge of conspiracy. I think the scienceblogs post linked upthread thoroughly deflates those charges. Not much else to say. There’s a link to the methodology for the adjustments, there’s a reasonable explanation for why the adjustments were necessary, and there’s an independent verification of the NOAA/GHCN results.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Eschenbach, that is.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 7:56 PM
I TOTALLY misread what Blink wrote….d’oh!
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM
The hockey-stick fraud in 2007
macncheez on December 9, 2009 at 8:00 PM
The satellite data is calibrated with land temperatures that have been homogenized. Seriously, it is.
darwin-t on December 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Does this mean that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy?
withoutfeathers on December 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Homogenized temperature data?
Thats in addition to the “fudge factor” ?
macncheez on December 9, 2009 at 8:23 PM
The homogenization process is what is done to make many different sets of RAW data process the same (gaps in measurements, different procedures, different bias/errors) It looks to me like what eschenbach is showing is the effect of the homogenation procedure on an existing and contiguous dataset (eg one that doesn’t need it). He’s going backwards to see th effect all the calculations have on what (in theory) is good data.
One of the cardinal rules of labwork is “your data is what it is, DON’T F WITH IT!” What this shows is that someone F’d with it. Your own link had surrounding stations at .13 to .06 trends in actual data, nothing like the 1.2 published on that chart.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 8:35 PM
I read both sides on this “debate”. I read what they have released as to their methodology about why they modified the data…
What I did not see, anywhere, is the data they used to make these adjustments. “IF” they have data showing the 2+ degree swing as valid? show us the data.
Show us how the new sensor had a 2 degree difference with the old sensor… because you have both data sets from the same time…
show us with DATA how changing an enclosure would cause this shift in data… a simple lab experiment could do it…
show us with two data sets, how MOVING the sensor caused a shift in reading….
You are putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. They need to show why those changes are scientificly valid… because as I’ve pointed out before, the changes they are making to the data set are larger than the changes they are using to show Global Warming.
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Um, blink was only responding to the coin flip scenario that DaveS originally floated. He floated the idea of each of the millions of temperature data points being equivalent to an individual coin flip.
Thinking that he was making a loose comparison I suggested the 60% result. He then responded with a strict comparison of one temp data point equals one coin flip.
So, I think your response was appropriate.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM
Let me point out the exact flaw DaveS made with that.
Even if a decade generates a million data points, this doesn’t mean that EACH data point was in fact a high or low record.
It would be different if he was claiming that a million temperature records were generated during the decade. However, I think we can all laugh at that premise.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 8:44 PM
Well, there was this rather crude experiment done,
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/east-anglia-homogenization-falsified-declines-into-increases/#comments
whitewash was the original choice, is it still in use?
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/rising_surface_temperatures_ba.html
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 8:49 PM
gah…sorry, cut from the wrong tab…here is the experiment..
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/a-significant-editorial-on-weather-station-and-data-quality/
(proof-read dummy…..grrr)
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM
I don’t think I’d agree that if you get a 60% HEADS on that many flips you’d have a strong statistical probability of a TAILS bias in the coin.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 8:55 PM
That dataset is not contiguous in any sense of the word that I can think of. I concede that it exists, though.
If you want to combine several datasets, each measuring the same thing but with their own biases, then yeah, you F with the data.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 8:58 PM
That’s 1.2 C/century on the chart and .13,.13, and .06 respectively per decade from the ABOM data. That actually agrees quite well.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 9:12 PM
On how many flips? How many supposed temperature records were set during the last decade?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 9:14 PM
That’s fine. But show the raw data and tell everyone how you F’d with it.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 9:15 PM
Check out americanthinker.com for an explanation by a computer programmer as to how the data were, uh, “adjusted” such that they were forced into showing a hockey stick shape. I also read that the McIntyre/McKitrick team tested the program for the hockey stick with 10,000 combinations of random numbers and 99% of the time the shape of the outcome was a hockey stick.
MADgirl91 on December 9, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Does anyone know where Al Gore got his PhD and in what scientific field? Anyone check out his publications? Anyone?
MADgirl91 on December 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Ridiculously poor analogy. It is entirely possible to get heads 90% of the time. Your assumption is extremely flawed.
jdkchem on December 9, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Eschenbach is using the raw data. So that’s obviously available. You can read a description of the adjustment procedure here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf
I’m also going to reccommend starfleet_dude’s 4:38 link again because it has a lot of relevant info, even if you don’t agree with the analysis.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 9:31 PM
You must be from Colorado!
jdkchem on December 9, 2009 at 9:32 PM
They’ve improperly assumed correlating stations and from the results biased the data towards higher temps. Poorly done.
jdkchem on December 9, 2009 at 9:41 PM
And then compare your TRANSFORMED data to the original to make sure your process to standardize your work doesn’t materially change your results. This “homogenization” completely deviates from the raw readings. To do that you better have VERY specific, attributable, and quantifiable adjustments. What were the exact reasons that station zero data was in error? How did they determine the amount of each error adjustment?
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Just so we’re clear, that’s not the case that Eschenbach is making. Also, the high-quality climate site data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology seems to agree with the adjusted data. If it’s poorly done, the results are surprisingly good.
All I’m saying — if Eschenbach is going to accuse someone of fraud and link it all over the internet, he needs to show a lot more work before anyone should take him seriously.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 9:55 PM
So tell us what he did wrong?
Is his blue line wrong?
Is his red line wrong?
Or are you claiming that all 40 years worth of upward corrections at Darwin Airport were necessary?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Sorry, I’m not sure I’m following your analogy. Are you saying that you could still have a condition where random temperature spikes set a “record” even though the mean is declining? If so I agree, but the coin flipping didn’t connect with me.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Forgive me if I’m missing something here, but Eschenbach is showing Raw vs Adjusted data for a SINGLE site.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM
you’re right. scale is important, lol.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Yes. In fact, I was even claiming that you could have more record spikes than record lows even though the mean is declining.
DaveS was claiming that this was impossible. I had agreed with him that it wasn’t expected, but disagreed that it wasn’t possible.
That’s when he claimed that it would impossible to get heads 90% of the time without the coin being biased towards heads. I lowered the number to 60%, but failed to lower the number of flips. (I think he was equating each flip to a temperature reading instead of a temperature record.)
Sorry, I shouldn’t have even entertained the poor analogy.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 10:18 PM
(1) The original results weren’t a faithful reconstruction of the temperature record for a variety of commonsense reasons. That’s why the adjustments had to be done. The homogenization needn’t be a linear transform over the entire dataset, which is why (I think obviously) the basic properties of the curve can change. If you want to argue that the original data was too compromised to reliably correct for biases, I think that’s a point worth looking into. But you have to look into it, and Eschenbach didn’t.
(2) If the link to the description of their methodology doesn’t provide enough detail to reproduce their work, say that. But it’s just not true that they’re hiding it.
(3) You might ask the same questions of Eschenbach’s naive interpretation of the raw data.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM
One site, but five different records arranged in a piecewise series.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 10:33 PM
Eschenbach doesn’t argue that. (I’m not saying that you claim he does.)
Why does there need to be an adjustment curve? Wouldn’t a station move simply require a step function adjustment?
Eschenbach doesn’t argue that either. (Again, I’m not saying that you claim he does.) He seems to be claiming that the adjustment methodology is flawed. Something Lambert DOESN’T dispute. All Lambert’s appears to be saying is that both sources adjusted the data by the same amount. That’s not unusual since they probably rely on the same paper to generate their adjustment methodology.
So, again. Tell me what Eschenbach did wrong?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 10:35 PM
I think I see the problem.
Are you under the impression that the ABM’s “high-quality” data is “high quality” raw data? Do you not believe that “high-quality” means adjusted? And do you not believe that such adjustment might be prone to the same flaws as NOAA’s?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 10:44 PM
Weren’t a faithful representation? That’s a fancy way to say they were wrong. HOW? BE SPECIFIC. This result isn’t just about statistics now. The ‘statistical recreation’ doesn’t match the recorded observations. WHY? BE SPECIFIC. If you’re going to discard a raw data point you have to have an assignable, PERIOD.
All of the ‘raw’ data for the Darwin area support each other rather well
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Please pay close attention to Figure 5, titled “Five Darwin Raw Temperature Records From GHCN.” There is little disagreement between the sets, and fit line is fairly flat (at least to the naked eye) How do you create a positively sloped temp anomaly and yet the absolute data has at best a minor linear increase (if at all).
Let me cut to the chase here. The temp anomaly is a linearly increasing slope. This is in essence an increasing rate of temperature increase. A linearly increasing rate will create a non-linear increase in absolute measurement. In essence, the raw temperature should be increasing in an exponential way. The raw data measurements do not appear to support this.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 10:44 PM
You need some overlap in the measurements in order to calibrate what the difference of the equipment is. Or you need a third factor to compare them both against. You can’t just affix them together and make up an arbitrary amount to adjust by. Note if you look at the adjusted data there is still large temp decline in the range of 1940-1942. This means the entirety of the large drop in the raw data was not due to the change of equipment. How much was real and how much was due to equipment? Seems like they created their own number out of hot air.
Resolute on December 9, 2009 at 10:46 PM
I once attended a seminar given by a guy who was a expert in radio communications. During a break, he told us a story about how he had developed a burst transmitter design for an agency within the “intelligence community”. In the process, he described how not only did this intelligence agency have guys designing radio transmitters that could be hidden, they had another set of guys, a “counter group,” who’s job it was to detect hidden radio transmitters. These two groups would go after each other in an attempt to come up with the best possible transmitters and the best possible methods of detection.
In climate science, we have a bunch of seemingly half drunken academics who live off the government dole while they concoct ridiculous schemes to prove something that it seems has been predetermined to be true, no matter the actual empiric data. The only group of guys trying to test they schemes are underfunded or doing work on their own time pro-bono.
This process is obviously corrupt. It was never meant to provide the truth. If it was, the government research community would also have a fully funded “counter group” to try to prove that “Anthropogenic Global Warming” doesn’t exist, has little impact or at least can be easily mitigated and therefore save billions, if not trillions, of dollars/Euros/pounds on trying to prevent a non sequitur.
The fact that there is no “counter group” immediately brings into question the purpose of the activity and whether it is meant to be part of that “waste, fraud and abuse” that so often infiltrates all vestiges of government. The fact that this is an international activity makes one wonder if the UN has any real function except to give heads of state a chance to go shopping in New York City from time to time and travel to useless conferences where they can dine well and come up with new ideas on how to fleece their citizens at home.
J_Crater on December 9, 2009 at 10:46 PM
Just speed read through the link you provided above… may not have gotten all of it….
It was full of non specifics. They talked about Homogenization of data, but then did not really talk about the methodology… so it can’t really be checked to see “if” they followed the proper procedures in this case, of this one specific site.
What Eschenbach was trying to do, was see if they were following proper procedure… so he went to the origional data set… and showed that data against “changed” data….
I still submit… that a 2+ degree centigrade change in the data is very very hard to justify, and its up to the one who CHANGES the data to justify why, and HOW MUCH, they change the data.
They make a good case as to why SOME data may need to be changed… but they don’t talk specifics, or about why they changed THIS data.
The norm in science is NOT to change the data… at least I certainly thought so… but then again I learned most of my physics in Navy Nuclear Power school… where to change data could create serious problems…
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 10:47 PM
From what I read, the principle equipment change resulting in a lowering of actual data (hence requiring an upward adjustment in all following data (or to be truly accurate a reduction of previous numbers) was the switch to stevenson screens in the late 1800′s.
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 10:53 PM
He explicitly says that the data doesn’t need adjustment. Maybe “faithful” is too strong a word, but he must believe that his graph showing a cooling trend at the Darwin site is accurate to some extent to say that.
I got a little carried away trying to defend the NOAA numbers, which I didn’t set out to do. Truthfully, I don’t know what to think of the adjustments. They’re appropriate. That’s not even a question to me. The only question is if they got the numbers right, and the best way to answer that is to look for independent records that verify their results.
I’ve kind of written a lot more on the subject than I meant to, but I’ve enjoyed the debate. I guess what Eschenbach did wrong is that he didn’t argue as fair-mindedly as the folks I’ve had the pleasure to discuss this with all afternoon. That, and it’s just plain wrong to treat 5 different temperature records as a continuous series.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 10:54 PM
RightOFLeft,
Here’s more.
Eschenbach is posting in the comments section over at WUWT.
In response to someone telling him that ABM was simply adjusting for a change in sensor shelter (as their website claims) Eschenbach wrote this:
Dude, you have to admit that Lambert’s complaint and explanation is incredibly weak.
It definitely seems to me that ABM and NOAA have some explaining to do.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 10:55 PM
I’m under the impression that it’s a different record, yes; but not that it hasn’t been adjusted. I’ve been saying all afternoon that the data has to be adjusted to account for things like new instrumentation and the specific history of the site.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 10:57 PM
I agree that he was really judgemental claiming fraud right out of the gate, but his analysis is not bad. I understand the statistical point about different series, but when you compare them together in the physical world there just isn’t a good reason given for the adjustments. We have to have a physical reason to change data, not a mathematical one, does that make sense?
Fighton03 on December 9, 2009 at 10:59 PM
Yes. Fair enough. I know you were only questioning Eschenbach – and that’s a good thing.
Really? Why are they appropriate? Simply because NOAA and ABM claim they were necessary? Shouldn’t make them defend the need to adjust Darwin?
Gee, which independent records would those be? Where the heck do you think you can find independent records?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Really? Did you notice that Eschenbach is claiming that the new instrumentation was introduced over 50 years prior to the adjustment?
blink on December 9, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Regardless of what adjustments should and shouldn’t occur I’m sure we all agree that the world’s temperature data is an absolute mess. And such a mess is completely vulnerable to fraud. Relying on it is like crossing an ocean in a ship full of leaks.
blink on December 9, 2009 at 11:04 PM
then you would have to agree that the synopsis data sets we get from CRU, or NASA, are wrong?
As they put many more than 5 data sets from different temp records into a contiguous series… and even change data sets in mid run?
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Not based on Darwin. The authors argue that their adjustment method is more accurate at larger scales, which makes sense. Eschenbach may have just found an outlier. He might even be right that the warming at Darwin is an artifact of their statistical methods. That doesn’t sustain a charge of outright fraud. I’m curious how Eschenbach chose Darwin in the first place. Dart on a map or cherry-picked?
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 11:19 PM
I don’t know what to think of that. Someone in his comments thread quoted a letter claiming the instrumentation changed in the 40s. Two people I don’t know making contradictory claims. I can only shrug.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2009 at 11:22 PM
If they changed instrumentation in the early 1940s, then I could see a data adjustment THEN…
But if you look at the scale of the admustments, they seemed to change year to year on a non linear basis after that. I find it hard to believe that conditions changed year to year enough to necesitate recalibrating the data, through manipulation, differently EVERY YEAR!
Romeo13 on December 9, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Sure it makes sense that they would claim that. It doesn’t make it true.
blink on December 10, 2009 at 12:08 AM
It appears that the station move occurred in the the 1940s. The instrument changes supposedly occurred in the 1800s. One dynamic should only justify one adjustment – not repeated adjustments.
However, I’m sure we can get to the bottom of this as NOAA and ABM surely must have a record of such changes in order to justify their adjustments.
blink on December 10, 2009 at 12:28 AM
The way I understand it, the proxy data (tree rings) showed temperature declines. The instrument measurements showed an increase. The homogenized data showed what the alleged scientists wanted to see.
tanarg on December 10, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Charles “Piltdown Man” Dawson and Bernie “Swindler” Madoff were both pikers in comparison to these incompetent fakers.
MB4 on December 10, 2009 at 2:35 AM
Testing
LegendHasIt on December 10, 2009 at 2:47 AM
OK, Ed, AP or whoever; Why isn’t my post going through?
No links in it, no dirty words, no comments on Michelle 0bama, no weird formatting etc. But it keeps disappearing into HA cybespace.
LegendHasIt on December 10, 2009 at 2:55 AM
+1000
IowaWoman on December 10, 2009 at 3:06 AM
Heh. We’re talking about climate change. 1 Century is too short for making a conclusive data. Ask NASA to make the discussion in terms of millenial scale.
But you can’t. Because NASA’s current Chief (recently appointed by Obama) is one of the main authors of this scam.
TheAlamos on December 10, 2009 at 3:17 AM
Just recently got blocked from LGF. What was my crime? Using vulgar language? Being abusive to CJ or other bloggers?
No. I was blocked because I disagreed with the notion of man-made global warming.
That’s all I need to know about the global warming alarmist movement.
iceman1960 on December 10, 2009 at 7:23 AM
Important to know. Follow the liars.
http://www.cashill.com/twa800/climategate.htm
miles on December 10, 2009 at 8:29 AM
Welcome to the club. You are in good company.
Disturb the Universe on December 10, 2009 at 8:46 AM
Slightly OT…why is Soros speaking at Hoaxenhagen? The fox is in the henhouse!
TheVer on December 10, 2009 at 9:25 AM
How exactly do they measure ocean level to the millimeter?
Ripples are higher, satellite orbits vary by that much, sticks settle into the ground that much.
Funny story.
I live in the RI area and there was a measuring stick that was showing sometimes a great raise in the bay level and sometimes not. The people looking at it eventually traced it to a guy that had a crab trap tied to the stick. He would go out there and pull up the stick every few days to get his trap. He would then stick in back in but not always to the “correct” depth.
RagTag on December 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM
I am assuming he’s manning BO’s puppet strings.
Badger40 on December 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »