Global warming just ended

I've provided links to work that Anthony Watts and Judith Curry. Additionally Steve McIntyre has attempted to look at the homogenization algorithm used by the USHCN

https://climateaudit.org/2012/07/17/station-homogenization-as-a-statistical-procedure/

Why the non transparency ?? This is reminiscent of the attempts by McIntyre to obtain data used in the Mann's hockey stick.

Using both known bad data and good data to form policy decisions is ridiculous. This would be akin to designing a airplane wing by combining one data set with a known air temperature error due to incorrect calibration of the measurement instrumentation with data which had no such problem. Why would anyone in their right mind do something like that. Throw out all the known bad data and deal only with the good.

And all the raw data is not available. Phil Jones has destroyed a great deal of it (CRU0 by manipulation and then deleting the actual data. The ClimateGate emails contained this embarrassment. So now we design policy without benefit of any raw CRU data. Nice.

 

They produce a "better" record every year making the past cooler and the present warmer.

 

Yes, just put in a request and they can manipulate any past trends which don't fit the narrative of the day out of existence.

 

Everything McIntyre needed to know about Menne's algorithm is documented in the paper published in 2009. How transparent is that? The algorithm has been examined and validated repeatedly over the last 7 years so its properties are very well know. If McIntyre is so sure there are problems with the methodology, what is keeping him from re-visiting the issue?

If someone knows what is "good data" and what is "bad data", then it should be simple enough to remove the "bad data" and see how it affects temperature trends. Oh wait, Berkeley Earth already did that.

Since CRU doesn't take any measurements themselves, they acquire it from weather stations around the world, mostly from weather stations run by National Meteorological Services, it doesn't matter if CRU destroyed their copy of the raw data. Someone can always simply acquire it from the original sources themselves.

 

Why was McIntyre refused initially ?? That is the point. Can anyone obtain the algorithm code and use it for testing ??

Data from poorly sited stations should not be used.

Berkeley Earth did not do that.

 

Apparently because he asked for something that he either already had or didn't exist.

Sure, here and here and here. Menne only developed the method, which is fully documented in his 2009 paper. Software that implements this algorithm comes from many different places.

That is exactly what Berkeley Earth did. Using station rankings developed by Anthony Watts himself, they found that temperature anomalies for both the OK (ranked 1, 2, and 3) and the Poor stations (ranked 4 or 5) are statistically indistinguishable, and if anything, poor sites are warming less than the OK sites.

 

This is a circular argument. The latest from Watts is from 2015. The BE paper is from 2013.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12...tation-siting-matters-for-temperature-trends/


Additionally Dr. Curry who is an author on the BE paper has posted this in 2015.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/watts-et-al-temperature-station-siting-matters/


All this shows that data from badly sited stations should be excluded. There should be no tolerance for forming policy or conclusions based on known bad data.

 

That would be the same paper Watts released in 2012, and has still yet to publish. He appears that the more he learns, the less difference between his trend and NOAA's.

Does Watts explain why he only uses USHCN data through 2008?

Does Watts attempt to explain what process might be causing the difference between the trends? Scientists know that bad siting will bias the actual temperatures, but there is no reason why it would bias the temperature trend.

Does he explain why the bias that is constant throughout the 1980's and 1990's has stopped since then? While scientists admit that USHCN siting has flaws, and they look for ways to correct those flaws in the data, the actual sites have not changed. Meanwhile NOAA established USCRN with perfect siting so they could correct USHCN data. If the warming trend is mostly due to siting, then why does USCRN show even more warming than USHCN?

Judith Curry may have been impressed by Watts presentation at AGU 2015, but Victor Venema from the Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn was a little more critical.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2015/12/anthony-watts-agu2015-surface-stations.html

Maybe Watts will do what good scientists do and either correct his work or show why the criticism is unwarranted. I hope it doesn't take another three years to find out.

 

And I come back to this: All this shows that data from badly sited stations should be excluded. There should be no tolerance for forming policy or conclusions based on known bad data.

 

Then why doesn't someone produce a global temperature record that excludes all of the badly sited stations, and tell us what the current trend in global mean surface temperature is?

 

Exactly. And why isn't that "someone" the very well funded gov agencies. Of course trends can be seen but it's the magnitude of those trends which must be used to make policy decisions. It's been shown that biases do change with time and they are significant for very small urban areas. Populations grow and there is no reason to believe that the bias would grow accordingly. Combining known good data and known bad data using some homogenization technique to ultimately make policy is inconceivable in the engineering world. And if there is more warming shown by using good data so be it.

 

Why should they do your work for you? All of those "very well funded gov agencies" have already analyzed the data and determined that siting doesn't affect the trend. You appear to be under the mistaken idea that science is reserved only for the government. Like most other things in this country, science is open to anyone that is willing to put in the effort and can defend their work. If you don't agree with the conclusions that other scientists have reached, then write your own paper explaining how they got it wrong. If you don't think the climate models are accurate, then produce your own climate model that does better.

 

They do, it's called the satellite records. It may not show surface temperatures but it does show the disconnect in the hypothesis where the warming is supposed to show first, in the troposphere.

 

I assert that the more important issue is the use of "inferred" data as also included in the aggregation process. The current data model shows that inferred data, (meaning data interpolated or estimated for areas without actual data stations) is demonstrably responsible for most of the skewing of the data averages being significantly warmer.

 

For instance, there are no data points from the Arctic. Another is that I believe they use a 1200km radius for interpolating areas with no data points.

 

Yes, that as well. One of the main points from the work of Marohasy & Abbot up thread is to only consider temperature-time series which have very little (if any) missing data. The data started in 1887.

 

Why should they not be focussed on using the most complete data available which can be shown to have no siting problems. That's fundamental to good science and engineering and is critical to making fact based policy decisions. They should be focussed on this process for the good of all.

 

[QUOTEQuote Originally Posted by contrails View Post

Why should they do your work for you? All of those "very well funded gov agencies" have already analyzed the data and determined that siting doesn't affect the trend. You appear to be under the mistaken idea that science is reserved only for the government. Like most other things in this country, science is open to anyone that is willing to put in the effort and can defend their work. If you don't agree with the conclusions that other scientists have reached, then write your own paper explaining how they got it wrong. If you don't think the climate models are accurate, then produce your own climate model that does better..[/QUOTE]

I would simply expect that if those who receive public funding that they should perform effective work. If they do not, they shouldn't expect future funding. In the current ecosystem, however, the conclusive product is more valued to those administrating the grants than effective science. As long as that political agenda value is being expressed, likely, we will continue to have to endure yet more quasi or pseudo science as a result.

 

I would simply expect that if those who receive public funding that they should perform effective work. If they do not, they shouldn't expect future funding. In the current ecosystem, however, the conclusive product is more valued to those administrating the grants than effective science. As long as that political agenda value is being expressed, likely, we will continue to have to endure yet more quasi or pseudo science as a result.[/QUOTE]

Yes indeed the very well funded scientist wanting to stay very well funded. Nuff said.

 

Except even the satellite data shows tropospheric warming. Here is a paper from 2006, co-authored by J.R. Christy from UAH and C.A. Mears from RSS:

 

The graph speaks to that. Both RSS and UAH show less warming than GISS.

 

Just because you don't agree with their conclusions does not make their work ineffective. Deniers have railed against the imaginary political agenda of climate change for years. Now that we have a denier and chief in the oval office, they can't use that excuse much longer. It will be fun to see in two years just how little the science has changed.

 

Using the term denier is part of the political agenda.

 

Only slightly less. It's easier to see when you isolate the trends and correct the baselines.

What term would you use for people who deny reality?

 

CAGW supporters.