Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records 41

[zdas04]

There is a 53 minute presentation at Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records from Steve Goddard (who starts by describing his qualifications which seem to be rock solid) that shows many high quality examples of how dramatically the climate data has been modified. One interesting observation is that approximately 50% of U.S. weather stations have been taken out of service in the last 30 years (primarily rural) and the data is "estimated" based on the remaining stations which are primarily urban (and most have been "corrected" for heat island effects). His data shows clearly exactly how the climate data has been manipulated (always in the same direction). It is worth 53 minutes to see if your credibility button gets pushed.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

how many say "if the current tread continues ..." ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[IRstuff]

Of course, it is precisely through those proxies that we do know that CO2 levels were higher, and how do we know where we're headed if we don't know where we've been?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rconnor]

Zdas04,

How about you read the article I linked (here again). It explains, in detail and with supporting evidence, the chart. Or how about you address the simple mass balance reasoning.

Better yet, how about we return to the subject at hand – temperature data sets.

Zdas04, and the video he linked, make a claim that temperature data is corrupted, by purposeful manipulation by the scientists who produce them, in an attempt to fake the recent warming. They focus on USHCN data to “support” this claim. Here I will outline 4 reasons why their claim is complete nonsense. The TL;DR is point 3 – adjustments to global temperature data reduce the warming trend (good explanation from Zeke Hausfather of BEST and Victor Venema of Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn here). If nothing else, zdas04 needs to address this point. He has failed to do so thus far.

1) Adjustments to USHCN Are Required Due to TOBS (and Other Inhomogeneities)
The vast array of stations in the USHCN, or any network for that matter, are not static. New stations are added and removed, stations are moved, non-climatic conditions by stations change, instruments change and when and how observations are recorded change. If you took the raw readings, blind to all of these factors, you would get an erroneous data set; you have to adjust for these factors. Anyone claiming that “any adjustments to raw data are unjust manipulation” is dead wrong and has no idea what they are talking about.

The biggest adjustment in USHCN is Time of Observation Bias (TOB or TOBS) adjustments. Early in the data sets history, the majority of observations were taken in the afternoon but, over time, this practice was switched to being taken in the morning (see here from Menne et al 2009). If you go from taking the temperature in the afternoon to taking the temperature in the morning, you’re going to create a spurious cooling in the data. The temperature didn’t magically become colder the moment you made that switch, so you must correct for it. You can either adjust the AM readings to match the PM readings (raise the later temperatures) or the other way around (lower the earlier temperatures). Either way, the trend and the anomalies would be the same. Note that the switch from PM to AM readings started around 1960 and grows to present and the increase in warming adjustment (if you adjust AM readings to PM reading) or decrease in cooling adjustment (if you adjust PM readings to AM readings) occurs around 1960 and grows to the present (image and analysis by Zeke Hausfather of BEST).

“Skeptics” like to think that these adjustments are done behind a veil of smoke and mirrors. This is untrue. The data and methods are published in peer reviewed journals and most is easily accessible from their website. Information regarding the rationale and methods for these adjustments can be found in [link ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/menne-etal2009.pdf]Menne et al 2009[/url]. There are also groups such as the International Surface Temperature Initiative, which includes scientists like Victor Venema, Peter Stott of Hadley Center and Jay Lawrimore of NOAA, that invite inquiry and review of temperature data. Far from taking a stance of draconian control over the data, these scientists are creating channels to help further improve the data.

“Skeptics” also like to think that these adjustments are all wrong and purposeful manipulation to make up “fake” warming trend. Again, this is untrue. Beside the USHCN, the US also has a network of very tightly controlled, closely monitored reference sites, called USCRN. The USCRN can be used as a control adjust the biases introduced by station moves, TOBS and non-climatic changes in the USHCN. A recent study, Hausfather et al 2016 , provided a comprehensive review of USHCN against USCRN to determine the accuracy of the USHCN and the homogenization methods used therein. They found excellent agreement between the two data sets, indicating USHCN and the homogenization methods are accurate. See co-author Kevin Cowtan’s website for more information and details.
[image

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/sl..._temp_adjusted.png.CROP.original-original.png

]

For more information see this post by Victor Venema on TOBS adjustments or this article from NOAA or this post by Steven Mosher of BEST (note: Steven Mosher is a self-declared “lukewarmer”).

2) The US Represents 2% of the Planet
Zdas04 and Heller/Goddard’s claim states that global warming is “faked” by data “manipulation”. Therefore, they need to demonstrate that global temperature data has been manipulated to fake the warming. Thus far, all I can see from zdas04 is talk about USHCN which is data for US only. The US represents 2% of the surface area of the planet. Therefore, comments about US data alone are largely irrelevant to the global data sets and do not support their claim.

They also make claims that US scientists are politically motivated (or motivated by politicians) to “fake” the warming. However, this argument would not explain why data sets in other countries also show warming. Even Russia’s own meteorological institute (RIHMI-WDC), a country who has a strong dependency on exporting oil and who’s (extremely influential) president rejects global warming, also shows warming. Any claim of politically motivated tampering there is just laughable.

3) Adjustment to Global Temperature Data Reduces the Warming Trend
If you want to claim “global warming is faked”, then you better talk about global data sets. Unfortunately for those trying to make that claim, when you review global temperature data, you find that adjustments have actually reduced the warming trend. See my post at 26 Jul 16 17:04 that discuss the major adjustment in global data. A great rundown of global temperature adjustments can be found at this post by Zeke Hausfather of BEST and Victor Venema of Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn, here.
[image

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-opy7LoBO_...AAAg4/_DCE5Rzm9Fw/s700/land+ocean+raw+adj.png

]
So scientists are “faking” the warming by “manipulating” data to reduce the warming trend? This highlights just how nonsensical, confused and ignorant the claim that “global warming is faked” really is.

4) Multiple Different, Independent Metrics All Indicate Warming
Even if we want to ignore all temperature data, there are still many different, independent metrics that can tell us whether the planet is warming or not.
[ul][li]Images of the decline in arctic sea ice[/li]
[li]The data that shows the loss of arctic sea ice[/li]
[li]The data that shows the loss of Antarctic land ice (for sea ice see Zhang 2007 and Bingtanga et al 2013)[/li]
[li]The data that shows the loss of glacier mass[/li]
[li]The data the shows the rise in sea level[/li]
[li]The data that shows the increase in humidity[/li]
[li]The data that shows the increase in OHC[/li]
[li]The data that shows warming in several different natural temperature proxies[/li][/ul]
All of these indicate a planet that is warming. All of these are independent of temperature data sets. The planet is warming, plain and simple.

Furthermore, an entirely new temperature data set was create by skeptics for the sole purpose of correcting perceived “issues” with other data sets – Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST). They are independently operated and funded primarily by unrestricted educational grants. However, far from uncovering all the “manipulation” and “faking” of the warming, the group found their results closely matched other temperature data sets. This was enough to turn their founder, Richard Muller, from a skeptic to the mainstream view. It seems when skeptics actual take the time to do the science, rather than cherry pick or come up with non sequitar arguments like other “skeptics” do, they see that the science is actually quite solid.

TL;DR
The claim that “global warming has been faked due to scientists manipulating temperature data” is utterly false for the following reasons:
[ul][li]Far from being devious manipulation, USHCN adjustments are done to correct for Time of Observation Biases and are well document and supported. The USHCN matches very closely with the carefully controlled reference network USCRN, indicating the accuracy of the adjustments[/li]
[li]Complaints about USHCN adjustments, which are unfounded, are also irrelevant. The US represents 2% of the surface and so if someone wants to make claims that “global warming is faked” then they need to talk about global temperature data sets.[/li]
[li]When you examine global temperature data sets you see that adjustments actually reduce the global temperature trend. So complaints about “faking the warming” are completely wrong.[/li]
[li]Even if we ignore all temperature data sets that show similar warming trends, including one designed by skeptics to correct “issues” with other data sets, numerous other metrics indicate a warming planet.[/li][/ul]

Zdas04 is wrong. Tony Heller/Steve Goddard is wrong. There is no evidence of data manipulation to fake global warming. In reality, numerous independent data sets all indicate a similar warming trend. Independent evaluation of those data sets continually demonstrates their accuracy. Of course they could always be improved and scientists and data centers are constantly looking for ways to improve their data and methods. Lastly, and most importantly, adjustments to data have reduce the warming trend.

 

[rb1957]

it seems "odd" to me that the adjustments are all in one direction ... reducing the warming or not, i don't care, "adjustments" to me imply minor changes/corrections and I'd've expected upwards and downwards corrections.

again, are we overwriting the data with corrections (I thought East Anglica couldn't find the uncorrected data), or are we preserving the raw data ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

On a micro-level (single station moves, for example) the corrections go up and down. So overall corrections are minimal and have no observable trend.

However, for systematic changes (such as going from buckets to ship hulls to buoys or going from PM readings to AM readings) the corrections will work to counter the specific bias (warming in the case of buckets to ship hulls and cooling in the TOBS). These large scale systematic changes do have an observable impact on the trend.

What do you mean "overwriting data with corrections"? Like overwriting raw data with TOBS adjustments? Then no, that isn't done. Hence all the "unadjusted data" trends in the graphs I've linked.

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
I read the tripe you linked, and it has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss AGW start another thread. I'm talking about the integrity of the data record.

you said:

Zdas04, and the video he linked, make a claim that temperature data is corrupted, by purposeful manipulation by the scientists who produce them, in an attempt to fake the recent warming. They focus on USHCN data to “support” this claim. Here I will outline 4 reasons why their claim is complete nonsense. The TL;DR is point 3 – adjustments to global temperature data reduce the warming trend (good explanation from Zeke Hausfather of BEST and Victor Venema of Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn here). If nothing else, zdas04 needs to address this point. He has failed to do so thus far.

And to that I say, "Shame on you". To say the video "make a claim that temperature data is corrupted, by purposeful manipulation by the scientists who produce them, in an attempt to fake the recent warming." is just crap. The video was very careful to point out differences between PUBLISHED data from the past and PUBLISHED data from the current period and ask the question "how did 70 year old data change from one decade to another?" How did it change? Why did it change? That is the question. As to your purposely obscure questions
1) Adjustments to USHCN Are Required Due to TOBS (and Other Inhomogeneities). The question is not "why is the data manipulated between the instrument and the database", the question is "why was 70 year old data changed 60 years after the fact?". In any other field, "adjustments" are made to data in a manner that allows them to be rolled back. Not in this field. Even necessary modifications are done destructively. Saying anyone who questions this is "dead wrong" does not make it so. What is "published in peer reviewed journals" is not verifiably what is happening. No other field would just accept that "I'm adding 8 degrees to the data because they used to take the readings in the heat of the day and now they take them in the morning, but trust me it is only 8 degrees". The "but trust me" is perfectly acceptable to climate science, but not acceptable in any other discipline.
2) The US Represents 2% of the Planet. I'm not going to address your continued personal attacks on me. What I am going to say is that the U.S. represents the most comprehensive, best maintained data base over any piece of the earth, and if ours is being manipulated, then you can bet long odds that the rest of the world is worse. The U.S. data was presented in the video as examples of data manipulation. It did not ever claim that the U.S. was the world or that you couldn't find similar examples in the datasets of other countries. I know that I have tried to find historical climate data on Botswana and Nigeria to allow me to size evaporation ponds in those countries and the data had very spotty coverage and within a site you were lucky to have a single "daily" record a quarter.
3) Adjustment to Global Temperature Data Reduces the Warming Trend This one feels to me like the store that doubles their prices in mid-June and offers a 30% discount over the 4th of July weekend. The "adjustments" that you are talking about are applied to the so called "raw" data that has already been manipulated in translation from instrument to storage. Since no one can ever reproduce the instrument data because it is destructively edited, there is no way to prove either side of this. And then there is the 50% of the U.S. data set (and 90% of third world datasets) that are simply "Estimated" with no instrument input at all. No chance of a self-fulfilling prophecy here.
4) Multiple Different, Independent Metrics All Indicate Warming Even if that were true, we have a problem with causation.

All of that tedious post is talking about current data and how bloody wonderful it is. I don't think that it is at all wonderful and I have looked at the raw data, but I'm a "Skeptic" so I obviously only cherry pick the results that satisfy my bias. But what happened to the 1930's heat wave that affected all of the northern hemisphere and killed many thousands of people across the globe? What happened to the 1940-1980 cooling that was so broadly reported when the panic-mongers were claiming that the ice age was upon us? Why are they are missing from the data that claims 2015 was the hottest year on record (until 2016 of course) when it was much cooler than 1936?

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

Zdas04, do you believe temperature data was manipulated to fake the warming globally?

If yes, everything I've written is applicable. If not, then could you please clarify your position.

Also, providing something to supprt your hand waving might be helpful. Your last paragraph is just random, unsupported statements. 1936 was warmer than 2015? Based on what? How can you dismiss all temperature data on one hand and then make comparative statements about temperature data with the other?

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO and form your next question based on what he said, not what you want him to have said. He is comparing published data ABOUT THE US from the closing decades of the last century to data concerning the same time period purported to have come from the same data store in 2014-2016. IT IS DIFFERENT. VERY DIFFERENT. He is asking the same question that I've been asking through this entire thread "Why is 70 year old data different in 2015 than it was in 1980?" Simple question. Who got their TARDIS fired up for the purpose of re-extracting data in the 1930's and finding that 12,000 people died in the U.S. in 1936 from, I don't know, polar bear attacks? instead of the strongest heat wave in living memory. That is the question. He went to publications from the closing decades of the 20th century and extracted graphs that were peer reviewed (and then mostly extracted from the peer reviewed literature into popular literature) and compared the graphs to current graphs that had footnotes that pointed to the same source as the 20th century graphs and they were very different. Current graphs do not show the 1930's heat wave. Current graphs do not show a 4 decade cooling period from 1940-1980, but when the climate-alarmists were predicting the Great Lakes never being ice free again that cooling period was "proof" of the claim and today's graphs show a measurable increase during that period. There really has to be time travel involved or else someone is playing very unfunny games.

That "hand waving" that you are so quick to sneer at is DATA FROM THE VIDEO.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[KiwiME]

I watched a few minutes of the DAMNED VIDEO while researching the speaker. Clearly he's biased and as such I determined that there's no need for me to waste any more time with it, and am amazed that any person with a science education would bother.

 

[rconnor]

60 years ago I measure temperature in the afternoon and store that number in the database. At the time that number is correct. At some point I start measuring temperature in morning and store that number in the database. Neither my old (PM) data or my new (AM) data is wrong but now comparisons between my past points are flawed. My station has not magically had a step change in climate. Without correcting for my change is measurement practice, I have a flawed data set.

With me so far?

I need to correct this flaw. I can either adjust my older PM temperature trends to match my new AM temperature trends or the other way around. It doesn't really impact the overall trend as I'm dealing with anomalies so my baseline will just move up or down with my adjustment.

This is how and why 60 year old data can be adjusted. It's really not that complicated.

 

[rconnor]

And I wasn't asking Tony Heller/Steve Goddard for his answer, I was asking you. You've said that the purpose of you posting the video was to illustrate the "manipulation" of data. You said the "manipulation" was always in "the same direction". I can assume you insinuated in the warming direction. Is that correct?

So the purpose of you posting the video was to demonstrate that data was "manipulated" to show warming that wasn't real. Is that correct?

You have, in this thread, referred to climate change as a "hoax" on multiple occasions. I presume, then, you feeling that the "manipulation" of temperature data extends to global temperature data. Is that correct?

If so, then my 4 points are completely relevant.

To back peddle and say "I never intending on people connecting the talk about USHCN to global temperature data sets, watch the damn video!" is, to me, disingenuous. But then I could completely misunderstand your position. So I'll ask again, do you feel that temperature data was manipulated to fake warming globally?

 

[zdas04]

So let me get this straight. Before electronics took over the measurement marketplace, a person physically went to the instrument periodically and read the barometer, thermometer, wind speed, and rain gauge. Those values were then used to populate a database that still exists today. In the 1960's it was decided to systematically change from afternoon readings to morning readings. That change did not require anyone to modify the pre-1960's data until the 2010's. Therefore all graphs between some time in the 1960's and sometime in the 2010's were invalid and the data had to be be destructively edited to provide today's "more accurate" climate record? I call that "today's made up" climate record.

The only way to apply a systematic change to millions of records would be via some sort of computer program. Wonder how they did that to decades-old data? Bet they applied an arbitrary number based on the researcher's feelings of the magnitude of an average. Maybe subtract 6-10 degrees F? Ever hear of a Chinook? I know Bishop DiCaprio had never heard of one, but I was in one once in Calgary that changed the temperature nearly 80F in 8 hours. Wonder how well that event would be captured in an averaging program run 60 years after the fact. IT WOULDN'T. Adjusting history for some plausible misstep is still nonsense. Erasing the 1930's heat wave through a "timing glitch" seems especially egregious since a heat wave by definition is a non-average event and likely had data adjusted far more than the simple change from afternoon to morning readings would recommend.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rb1957]

why would any scientist overwrite data with corrections ?
and, probably, without recording what those corrections were ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

zdas04,

Let’s return to my example. This time I will show you graphically, using simulated data, the impact of changing my observation times from the PM to the AM.

For the first 50 points, I take my measurement in the afternoon. On point 51, I start taking my measurement in the morning. Here is my data.
[image

https://s31.postimg.org/jedspx657/My_Station.jpg

]

To the naked eye, the difference doesn’t seem apparent. And what do y’know, it shows cooling! It must be right!

So, for a while, this break in my station wasn’t noticed. It wasn’t until those corrupt scientists at head office (*spit*) started analyzing the data that they noticed something. They compared my station data against my neighboring station (red), that experience almost the same climate that my station does. The neighbouring station took reading in the morning for all 100 points. Here is the comparison
[image

https://s32.postimg.org/d6exm1avp/My_station_vs_neighbour.jpg

]

There is no break in the neighbouring station data and it closely tracks my AM measurements (which are in blue). It also clearly shows the step change in my data from point 50 to 51. Note the trends in my data from 1-50 and 51-100 are similar, and they match the trend of my neighbouring station. The temperature at my station didn’t magically drop in a step change, conveniently exactly when I switch my measurement practice, and then resume a similar trend. This break is not related to climate. This is an error in my data set that requires correcting.

Further analysis is done to calculated the bias introduced by the switch from PM measurements to AM. They chose to correct the PM measurements to the AM measurements which results in lowering the first half of my data. As we’re concerned about anomalies, not absolute values, it doesn’t really matter whether I correct PM to AM or AM to PM because my baseline will move accordingly and my anomalies and trend will be the same regardless of which direction I correct to.

So they apply the corrections and compare, again, against my neighbouring station.
[image

https://s32.postimg.org/4eos03qdx/Adjusted_vs_Neighbour.jpg

]

By gods, it shows warming! It must be wrong! Those corrupt scientists must have manipulated the data to create warming that wasn’t there! How did those corrupt scientists take my 60 year old data and turn it into this abomination!

Well, we know that those “corrupt” scientists “manipulated” data to address an error in my data. Nothing nefarious. No “fake” warming. Just corrections to errors in my data.

This is exactly what happens, but on larger scales of course, in USHCN and GHCN. Measurement practices aren’t static, they change. These changes introduce errors that require correcting. These corrections lead to better data. Nowadays, we have much more confidence in the data because we can compare it against very tightly controlled reference stations, USCRN. These comparisons show very little difference between USHCN and USCRN, indicating that the corrections to USHCN are accurate and produce a better data set.

What you and Heller/Goddard have done is looked at flawed data, that showed less warming (therefore you liked it), compared it against corrected data, that showed more warming (therefore you didn’t like), and went, “What happened! My god, they faked this warming!” Honestly, Heller/Goddard rambles on for an hour about adjustments to USHCN (and global data) and never once mentions time of observations. That tells you all you need to know about his “analysis” of the data; he’s not interesting in actually understanding the data, he’s interesting in pushing his conspiracy of data “manipulation” and “faking” of data. The same applies to you.

Instead, you could have (or should have) done your homework, looked through the literature with an open mind, tried to understand the reason for the adjustments and the methods used and realized that the adjustments are required to improve the data. Furthermore, you should have extended your analysis to global temperature data sets. After all, your link includes text that says there is “no doubt that scaremongering about global warming does not stand up to scrutiny.” So both you and your link are attempting to extrapolate USHCN to global warming. This, yet again, makes my 4 points very relevant to this thread and your and Heller’s/Goddard’s claims. Unfortunately for the narrative you are trying to push, global temperature data is corrected to reduce the warming trend. So scientists are “faking” global warming by cooling global temperature data?

 

[rconnor]

I asked you, "do you feel that temperature data was manipulated to fake warming globally?" You responded with, "WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO and form your next question based on what he said, not what you want him to have said."

So I did. He starts by talking about USHCN (which I've addressed in detail) and then talks about global temperature data (which I've addressed in detail). You'll notice his clever trick of talking about land data only and not talking about land and ocean data when discussing adjustments to global data. Likely because it kind of works against his narrative to point out the fact global temperature data for land and ocean has been adjusted to reduce the warming trend.

At 40:58 he puts up his concluding slide that states, "climate data is being manipulated to increase climate alarm". How am I possibly putting words in his mouth? He pretty much said exactly what I asked you to confirm.

So I'll re-state my very relevant point - how has "climate data [been] manipulated to increase climate alarm" when global temperature data (land and ocean) reduced the warming trend?

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
Just stop. Making up data to show that made-up data is A-OK is sad. Like so many times before, I'm going to stop even trying to read your cut-and-paste-fest from here on. If you truly believe that

These corrections lead to better data.

then there is simply no way to access a common ground.

"Better data" is one of the most reprehensible concepts in the whole reprehensible field of "Climate Science". Data is data. The only way that it can be made "better" is re-do the data capture with better instruments. Applying a computer model to it says "this dataset didn't really matter in the first place so I'll just multiply times zero and add the number I think it should have been and then call that fabrication "data"".

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[cvg]

so, since we only started with about 150 years of data, and except for the united states, very few countries have ever actually gathered any temperature data, and even in the united states, most of the data was flawed, we really have only a tiny amount of actual, good data. Seems reasonable to take that tiny amount of good data, fabricate a whole lot of proxy data, spend millions of dollars creating [un-calibrated] models and use it to predict world wide climate change. And now everything is settled. Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

 

[rconnor]

Making up data to show that made-up data is A-OK is sad.

You asked “how can 60 year old data get changed?”. I answered - TOB. You waved your hands and said “but how come no one noticed it before!”. So I provided this illustration to help you understand that sometimes TOB might not be apparent until you review the data closer and compare against neighboring stations. You waved your hands, sloganeered and avoided addressing the issue.

Going from PM measurements to AM measurements introduces a non-climatic step change bias (see Vose et al 2003). A data set that includes a non-climatic step change in the middle of the data set makes any analysis of the trend inaccurate. It's not a difficult concept.

You and Heller/Goddard blindly looked at the old, biased data and went “Ha! No warming! It’s fantastic”. Little did you know, you were looking at a flawed data set. Then you and Heller/Goddard blindly looked at the new, bias-corrected data and went “What! Now there’s warming! It’s faked!”. I tried to explain to you (and then illustrate) the difference between the two. Again, the fact that Heller/Goddard talks about adjustments to USHCN for an hour without mentioning TOB speaks to either his utter ignorance on the subject or his dishonesty. The same applies to you.

"Better data" is one of the most reprehensible concepts in the whole reprehensible field of "Climate Science". Data is data.

Data has a role – to accurately reflect information about some system. Data that more accurately reflects the information about a system is better than data that less accurately reflects the system. When changes to the recording of data (sensors or recording methodology) change, they introduce non-system changes to the data that reduce how accurately the data reflects the system. Corrections and adjustments are sometimes required to increase or repair the accuracy in these cases. Sensors drift - you correct for that to improve how accurately the data set reflects information about the system. Instruments change - you take that into account to improve how accurately the data set reflects information about the system.

For temperature data that role is to accurately reflect temperature trends. A temperature data series that contains non-climatic biases caused by changes in recording methodology is worse than one that doesn’t. It’s not a difficult concept.

 

[rconnor]

I’d also like to return to your response 29 Jul 16 00:39. My response to it didn’t do it justice, so I’ll be more thorough.

I read the tripe you linked, and it has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss AGW start another thread. I'm talking about the integrity of the data record.

Heller/Goddard’s concluding slide states, “"climate data is being manipulated to increase climate alarm". Half of his presentation is on global temperature data sets. Both he and you are absolutely trying to make this about AGW. Furthermore, my “tripe” I linked provides a detailed explanation about adjustments to the data record. How does that have “NOTHING to do with the topic at hand”? This feels like an attempt to avoid actually addressing my points. I’m not surprised.

1) Adjustments to USHCN Are Required Due to TOBS (and Other Inhomogeneities)

the question is "why was 70 year old data changed 60 years after the fact?".

I answered that – TOB adjustments (see Vose et al 2003). Your follow up question of “well, why didn’t anyone see that before?” was addressed in my illustration that TOB can be difficult to spot.

In any other field, "adjustments" are made to data in a manner that allows them to be rolled back. Not in this field.

You’re making stuff up. They still have the raw data, they can (and do) roll back/adjust changes made (hence the variances between versions and the reason they can compare raw data to adjusted data).

No other field would just accept that "I'm adding 8 degrees to the data because they used to take the readings in the heat of the day and now they take them in the morning, but trust me it is only 8 degrees".

You’re making stuff up. They don’t go “trust me” they present their adjustments in peer reviewed papers (see Menne et al 2009, Vose et al 2003, Karl et al 1987, etc.). Their methods are tested against controls and other methods from different data sets.

Also, notice that you failed to address the fact USHCN matches very closely with USCRN. Kinda inconvenient for your point I guess…

2) The US Represents 2% of the Planet

What I am going to say is that the U.S. represents the most comprehensive, best maintained data base over any piece of the earth, and if ours is being manipulated, then you can bet long odds that the rest of the world is worse.

Acknowledging and repeating your global conspiracy but criticize me of pointing it out. Makes sense.

The U.S. data was presented in the video as examples of data manipulation. It did not ever claim that the U.S. was the world or that you couldn't find similar examples in the datasets of other countries.

To quote you, "WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO". He spends half the talk discussing global temperature data sets. He ignores the total data and cherry picks land only because land only is adjusted such that the warming trend increases. However, the net adjustments (of land and oceans) reduces the warming trend. Kinda inconvenient for your (and his) point I guess…

3) Adjustment to Global Temperature Data Reduces the Warming Trend

This one feels to me like the store that doubles their prices in mid-June and offers a 30% discount over the 4th of July weekend.

This is nonsensical. When you compare raw data against final data, it shows that adjustments to raw data have reduced the warming trend. You’ll note in the talk, Heller/Goddard talks about global temperature data – but only for land. And yes, the land data is warmed. The ocean data is cooled. The net result is cooling. Kinda inconvenient for your point I guess…

Since no one can ever reproduce the instrument data because it is destructively edited

You’re making stuff up. See above.

4) Multiple Different, Independent Metrics All Indicate Warming

Even if that were true, we have a problem with causation.

Now that’s off topic! We aren’t talking about the cause of the warming, we are talking about whether the warming exists or whether it’s the result of “manipulating” data. This is just misdirection (i.e. hand waving while shouting, “look a squirrel!”). Multiple, independent metrics all tell us the planet is warming. That’s consilience of evidence. Kinda inconvenient for your point I guess…

So, you haven’t come close to substantively addressing any of my 4 criticisms. So I’ll repeat my main question - how has "climate data [been] manipulated to increase climate alarm" when global temperature data (land and ocean) reduced the warming trend?

 

[zdas04]

OK, so that one was short enough to read.

What a stupid argument. If you change data collection methodology, you simply cannot treat the dataset as continuous. You process the PM data as a dataset. You process the AM data as a different set. Then IN A SEPARATE DATASET you process each as a deviation from a base year (different for the AM and PM data) then combining the deviation data has validity. "Fixing" the data in place is obscene.

What you are praising is like taking 1000 data points at 1 record per second and then taking another 1000 data points at 1 record per day and then adding all 2000 points together and dividing them by 2000 to get an "average". The answer is incorrect. To combat that you multiply the daily data by the number of seconds in a day and then increase the divisor accordingly, right? It is still incorrect. If you group the 1000 short-interval data points into a daily average then you have less than one hour of data to average with daily records, but that would make the dataset too short so that is not considered. This field is full of this kind of nonsense that people "fix" with algorithms. It is fine to plot one-reading-per-millennia paleo data as a continuous function with properly geo-reconciled hourly data from satellites, right? What utter tripe.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist