What Climate change?

[original PM]

If you read the write-up, the uncertainty interval embraces both slight warming and cooling. Meanwhile, down here on the surface, we've had the warmest Jan-Mar on record. Go figure.

But apparently May is going to be colder the xmas day 2014....

???

[BlasterBates]

Or paranoid. As I've stated repeatedly, you're demonstrably incorrect. For the NASA GISTEMP series, all data and code are open source, you can download and run it yourself. For our HADCRUT from the UEA series the code and the majority of the data are likewise available. [A minority have to be withheld due to non-disclosure agreements with national met. services, it makes a negligible difference]. The algorithms are all documented in the literature and have been for some time. Heck, there was even a project called Clear Climate Code which took the NASA FORTRAN code beloved of scientists and refactored it in Python. Their conclusion:



But you knew most of this, you're being wilfully disingenous.

yes GISS adjustments are well documented, which is why we know that they're bad

http://http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/03/hansens-y2k-whopper/

a Hansen adjustment that will should leave anyone “gobsmacked”.

I think we'll wait for the scientists verdict. There are clearly serious problems with the GISS "adjustments".

[BlasterBates]

More on "data tampering"

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/

[pjclarke]

More on "data tampering"

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-at-ushcngiss/

If you want to be taken seriously, and be thought of as a genuine sceptic, then I would strongly advise against posting anything from Tony Heller/Steve Goddard without checking it thoroughly, and then throwing it away.

Noted climate change skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus".

Steven Goddard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[pjclarke]

yes GISS adjustments are well documented, which is why we know that they're bad

http://http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/03/hansens-y2k-whopper/

I think we'll wait for the scientists verdict. There are clearly serious problems with the GISS "adjustments".

As I noted above, it is possible, out of thousands of stations and millions of automated corrections to cherry-pick some dubious ones. This case, however seems to have been the result of a known systematic problem which (a) was fixed and (b) had a negligible effect on conclusions.

Recently it was realized that the monthly more-or-less-automatic updates of our global temperature analysis had a flaw in the U.S. data. We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that this flaw might be present.

In the 2001 update (described in Hansen et al. [2001]) of the analysis method (originally published in Hansen et al. [1981]), we included improvements that NOAA had made in station records in the U.S., their corrections being based mainly on station-by-station information about station movement, change of time-of-day at which max-min are recorded, etc.

Unfortunately, we didn't realize that these corrections would not continue to be readily available in the near-real-time data streams. The same stations are in the GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data stream, however, and thus what our analysis picked up in subsequent years was station data without the NOAA correction. Obviously, combining the uncorrected GHCN with the NOAA-corrected records for earlier years caused jumps in 2000 in the records at those stations, some up, some down (over U.S. only). This problem is easy to fix, by matching the 1990s decadal-mean temperatures for the NOAA-corrected and GHCN records, and we have made that correction.

The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable

As with Goddard/Heller, anything from McIntyre should be double-checked.

[BlasterBates]

As I noted above, it is possible, out of thousands of stations and millions of automated corrections to cherry-pick some dubious ones. This case, however seems to have been the result of a known systematic problem which (a) was fixed and (b) had a negligible effect on conclusions.



As with Goddard/Heller, anything from McIntyre should be double-checked.

ah so you haven't answered the point from Goddard, you've just smeared him.

what was that big word you use, which you don't really fully understand, but copy from the blogs you read such as "Hot Whopper"....

ah yes .....Ad hominem

[pjclarke]

ah so you haven't answered the point from Goddard, you've just smeared him.

what was that big word you use, which you don't really fully understand, but copy from the blogs you read such as "Hot Whopper"....

ah yes .....Ad hominem

Life is too short to waste checking the claims of every anonymous liar/charlatan you dig up from the web, especially one with a track record of posting bogus 'analyses'. But tell you what, as a good 'sceptic' if you would care to precis his claims and dig up the source data for his charts, I'd be happy to fact-check them for you, as a favour.

[BlasterBates]

Life is too short to waste checking the claims of every anonymous liar/charlatan you dig up from the web, especially one with a track record of posting bogus 'analyses'. But tell you what, as a good 'sceptic' if you would care to precis his claims and dig up the source data for his charts, I'd be happy to fact-check them for you, as a favour.

You still haven't adressed the concerns.

So they stand. "Shouting" is not a scientific argument.

Goddard gives the source of his data you can check it.

...and if he's wrong why are prominent scientists setting up an enquiry ?

Have a pleasant evening

[pjclarke]

You still haven't adressed the concerns.

So they stand. "Shouting" is not a scientific argument.

Goddard gives the source of his data you can check it.

...and if he's wrong why are prominent scientists setting up an enquiry ?

Have a pleasant evening

Have it your way, you beat me, I can't be bothered going on a wild goose chase. The shrill blog-complaints of a known liar 'stand'. The scientific establishment rocks on its foundations.

Prominent scientists are indeed setting up a serious enquiry. Then there's the diversion from the GWPF.

HotWhopper: Denier Weirdness: A mock delegation from the Heartland Institute and a fake enquiry from the GWPF

[BlasterBates]

Have it your way, you beat me, I can't be bothered going on a wild goose chase. The shrill blog-complaints of a known liar 'stand'. The scientific establishment rocks on its foundations.

Prominent scientists are indeed setting up a serious enquiry. Then there's the diversion from the GWPF.

HotWhopper: Denier Weirdness: A mock delegation from the Heartland Institute and a fake enquiry from the GWPF

ah I see so there's absolutely no problem with the GISS data set, yet there are enquiries being set up

yep I follow:



Perhaps you'd better pop round and shout at the scientists who want to set up the enquiry.