ben4vols Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It would be nice to see where the USHCN adjustment data is coming from on Goddard's graph...otherwise we can't really take it seriously. Adjustments should not be that high though if the graph is correct unless I am completely missing something. TOBS is much less of an issue now, and UHI should be doing that unless there was a mass relocation of urban thermometers to rural areas in the past couple of years and they are trying to keep the temp record intact. A few months ago he released his USHCN code. I'm not a programmer so I don't really understand the coding I also don't know if the coding contains his adjustments graph. LINK He also has this graph which should be animated and show the Tobs adjustment and then the final temperature reported after Tobs adjustment. As you can see the recent data, post Tobs adjustment, is raised even more to get the final temperature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You're correct - Christy and Spencer prefer talk to action, whereas Hansen is willing to risk arrest in non-violent protest against issues that are important to him. But I'm puzzled - by what twisted moral yardstick can you believe that inaction by Christy and Spencer is in any way superior to action by Hansen? Shouldn't we respect those people, like Hansen, with the strength of conviction to work for the goals they believe in - even if that means putting themselves at risk? As we Texans would say - Christy and Spencer are all hat and no cattle. And as younger folks would say - Hansen doesn't just talk the talk, he walks the walk. Walking the talk or not, the fact is that he is tied to an ideology, and anyone accusing other scientists of possibly allowing their ideologies to affect their interpretation of data need to apply that to Hansen as well. Well-revered in the community or not, he is not above reproach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It's probably a bit infuriating to hate or not like Hansen and know deep down a Man in his position doing those things is the epitome of Bravery, Honor, and Courage. :weenie: Hansen in 2012! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Maybe Steve should put a Sine curve on the data to really get you guys howling mad. I don't suppose Steve scrawls spurious sine's to irritate the informed, instead to baffle buffoons. If Goddard had been given Revere's task, he'd have ridden into the night shrieking "The British aren't coming, The British aren't coming" Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 A few months ago he released his USHCN code. I'm not a programmer so I don't really understand the coding I also don't know if the coding contains his adjustments graph. LINK He also has this graph which should be animated and show the Tobs adjustment and then the final temperature reported after Tobs adjustment. As you can see the recent data, post Tobs adjustment, is raised even more to get the final temperature. Its such a sham how temps are adjusted upward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Its such a sham how temps are adjusted upward. If the graph is accurate, yes it is. The cooling of the pre-1970 temperature record is amazing. Dust Bowl? What Dust Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 If the graph is accurate, yes it is. The cooling of the pre-1970 temperature record is amazing. Dust Bowl? What Dust Bowl? So it got tweaked right out of the records. Did they employ the nature trick? Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Not sure where else to put this, but the skeptical science team members published their first paper and received full peer review. Below is the link and abstract. http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf Abstract A recent paper by Douglass and Knox (hereafter DK12) states that the global flux imbalance between 2002 and 2008 was approximately -0.03 ± 0.06 W/m2, from which they concluded the CO2 forcing feedback is negative. However, DK12 only consider the ocean heat content (OHC) increase from 0 to 700 meters, neglecting the OHC increase at greater depths. Here we include OHC data to a depth of 2,000 meters and demonstrate this data explains the majority of the discrepancies between DK12 and previous works, and that the current global flux imbalance is consistent with continued anthropogenic climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The methodologies for the adjustments are a matter of public record and have been scrutinized heavily. The adjustments are made for good reason. Also, Goddard's graph is wrong. The cumulative effect of the adjustments can be found on the NOAA website: Here is the methodology: http://www.ncdc.noaa...ushcn.html#QUAL These are all the adjustments made (Goddard's graph is wrong): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The methodologies for the adjustments are a matter of public record and have been scrutinized heavily. The adjustments are made for good reason. Also, Goddard's graph is wrong. The cumulative effect of the adjustments can be found on the NOAA website: Here is the methodology: http://www.ncdc.noaa...ushcn.html#QUAL These are all the adjustments made (Goddard's graph is wrong): Yeah I have seen that graph before and it makes a lot more sense. Goddard's graph made no sense and never found any verification of it. The only valid scrutiny in the records is probably the classification method which is what Watts is investigating. But I generally think any changes would be relatively minor in the scheme of things when you comb over the data. Perhaps it would shave a few hundreths C per decade or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Goddard's graph made no sense and never found any verification of it. He is taking USHCN data (from their site that they supply to the public) and plotting it. I posted his blog where he went over his code. Did you go through it or do you not understand the coding (like myself). Verification seems like it would be easy to do for someone who understands the coding portion. Everyone wails that his graphs are a fabrication and they very well may be but no one has posted any proof of it. The NOAA chart above only goes out to 2000. Which USHCN dataset version is the chart associated with? Also the NOAA chart only shows Tobs minus Raw. Goddard shows that the data goes through another adjustment after Tobs to come up with a final temp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Also the NOAA chart only shows Tobs minus Raw. Goddard shows that the data goes through another adjustment after Tobs to come up with a final temp. The bolded is false. The NOAA chart shows all of the adjustments clear as day. And the link provides the methodology to those adjustments. It is true the NOAA graph only goes through 2000 but it is clear that Goddard's graph differs even through the year 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 He is taking USHCN data (from their site that they supply to the public) and plotting it. I posted his blog where he went over his code. I tried to access his code and received the following error: This site is blocked rapidshare.com This site is being blocked due to the rating of this site McAfee Security Rating: Red Given NCDC's quality controls and the differences between its graph, which contains all the stepwise adjustments, and Mr. Goddard's claimed adjustments, I believe the NCDC graph is the better one. That Mr. Goddard's code is not transparent--and placing the code on a site and/or format that may contain viruses or other computer security-related issues is not an example of transparency--I believe it is quite likely that Mr. Goddard's coding is inaccurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 That Mr. Goddard's code is not transparent--and placing the code on a site and/or format that may contain viruses or other computer security-related issues is not an example of transparency--I believe it is quite likely that Mr. Goddard's coding is inaccurate. So because he put his code up on a questionable site you say it is quite likely his coding is inaccurate? That seems to be a pretty far leap without seeing the coding yet. I see you post on his site from time to time, you should ask him for the code. Of course anyone could download the data (myself included) from USHCN and do the graphs themselves and this issue would be resolved rather easily. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 The bolded is false. The NOAA chart shows all of the adjustments clear as day. And the link provides the methodology to those adjustments. It is true the NOAA graph only goes through 2000 but it is clear that Goddard's graph differs even through the year 2000. I was more talking about seeing an animation type step graph of raw, Tobs, Final. The Tobs adjustment is questionable enough then they add another .2 to .25 (since 1990) in mostly SHAP adjustment (homogeneity) on top of that. Therefore temps since 1990 are being raised around .5F (according to NOAA graph). I also think that the time period between 1920 and 1950 was cooled more than they are showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 So because he put his code up on a questionable site you say it is quite likely his coding is inaccurate? No. It's not transparent if it's on a site with security-related issues. My point about its likely being wrong is that NCDC has described its quality controls in rigorous detail and its graphs reflect its work. Mr. Goddard has provided no evidence of quality controls. Hence, the reasonable approach is to have greater confidence in the quality controlled information. That does not guarantee that it is better, but quality controlled information is usually better, as errors are found and corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Looks like USHCN has been hard at work adjusting temps once again with their new USHCN V2.5. This time they are adjusting raw temps and still calling them raw. It is getting beyond ridiculous what they are doing to the temperature record. These people really need to explain what they doing and why they are doing it because the numbers do not match their bogus dated graphs. Credit to Steve Goddard for the graphs. LINK LINK2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 So I guess AQUA has failed completed? The AMSU site hasn't updated in a few days. Anyone shed light on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Despite the Neutral ENSO global sst anomaly's still haven't fallen off. display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jan2012 to 10oct2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Despite the Neutral ENSO global sst anomaly's still haven't fallen off. display plot oiv2.ctl ssta 1 03jan2012 to 10oct2012 That plot actually follows ENSO trends this year pretty closely. ENSO hasn't fallen off that much in the past couple months, just gone from weak Nino to +ENSO/neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 UAH is a +0.33 for October Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Global SST's as of October 31st. Global SST's in just October of 2012. 3, 10, 17, 24, 31. Nothing record shattering. But no sharp cooldown yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Global SST's as of October 31st. Global SST's in just October of 2012. 3, 10, 17, 24, 31. Nothing record shattering. But no sharp cooldown yet. Just following ENSO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 UAH is a +0.33 for October What happened to the "entertaining" polynomial fit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 What happened to the "entertaining" polynomial fit? I'm guessing it stopped being 'entertaining' when continued high temps (positive anomalies) would change it enough to no longer imply that temps have crested and that recent temps are decreasing. The same reason he doesn't show a linear trend line for the duration of the dataset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 What happened to the "entertaining" polynomial fit? Not sure i didn't see any mention of it i am sure he will give a reason for why it was taken out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow_Miser Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 RSS comes in with an anomaly of 0.29 Degrees C for October. About a 0.1 Degree C drop since last month. Came in as the 8th warmest October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 Any comments regarding the following maps as well as the respective Joe Bastardi comments? 2) "as per winter idea on global temps.. fall about to start. JMA shows week 1. vs wk 3,4 global temps. blue increasing" "Even this week, just as much blue and cold as red and warm. Evidence shows why climate clowns are deceptive" At this point, there's enough data (July-October) to show that this forecast of the beginning of a decline in global temperatures was wrong. GISS Monthly Anomalies: June: +0.56°C July: +0.46°C August: +0.58°C September: +0.61°C October: +0.69°C My thoughts from Message #547 were: First, the JMA has often been too cool in the long-range through much of the spring and summer (to date). Second, global temperature anomalies have fluctuated during the onset of an El Niño, so one can't rule out July's or August's being cooler than June's anomaly. In recent years, when El Niño events commenced during the summer, the global temperature anomaly for the fall has been warmer than the summer one. Hence, assuming the El Niño gets underway this summer, the autumnal global anomaly would likely be higher than the summer one. The June GISS and NCDC numbers are not yet in. It will be interesting to compare things a few months from now to see what happened. El Niño conditions were present for the July-September period. Summer 2012 Anomaly: +0.533°C Fall 2012 Anomaly: +0.650°C (through October). A November anomaly of +0.31°C would be required for Fall 2012 not to wind up warmer than Summer 2012. The last time any month was at least as cool was February 2008 (+0.26°C). The last time November was at least as cool occurred in 2000 (+0.29°C). One thing is certain, it isn't the "climate clowns" who made the busted forecast that a fall in global temperatures would commence during the summer. Moreover, a look at the historic experience would have suggested odds of such a scenario, even putting aside the climate change issue, were unfavorable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Current global sst anomaly's of Nov 7th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 17, 2012 Share Posted November 17, 2012 This is interesting. Not sure how it will effect global SST's. Or how long it will last. But global sst's definitely won't be dropping much with development's like this. The Indian Ocean also look's to have warmed up some. The Northern Hemisphere hot spot's haven't changed. Not sure how typical it is, but global sst anomaly's should go up from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.