Blatant fraud in action.
-
I am refering to Hansen. And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version" It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient? Yeah, there was such a thing, it was 10 years of the planet failing to warm. --edit-- Oh, this is the same Hansen wo received $750k from George Soros for the 'politicisation of science'. Guess what he then did?
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version"
Which suggests that either you didn't read what I said, didn't understand it or are not aware of the valid scientific reasons to do that. Reasons that apply to data collection regardless of what the data is. And again the link discusses none of that. So again it either represents ignorance or is intended to be alarmist. And again this has nothing to do with whether the adjustments are correct or not. The link doesn't in fact discuss why the adjustments are in error but just implicitly implies that they are. That isn't science. It is ideology. Nothing else.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient?
I suggest you study statistical analysis extensively along with doing some extensive real world experience in collecting data which originates from a source that produces very large volumes of data points. Then in between 2 years and 10 you will be able to answer that question yourself. It would take even less time to see such adjustments made even if you didn't understand why.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
And if you think adjustments are valid then read again: "The graph below alternates between the 1999 GISS graph and the current version"
Which suggests that either you didn't read what I said, didn't understand it or are not aware of the valid scientific reasons to do that. Reasons that apply to data collection regardless of what the data is. And again the link discusses none of that. So again it either represents ignorance or is intended to be alarmist. And again this has nothing to do with whether the adjustments are correct or not. The link doesn't in fact discuss why the adjustments are in error but just implicitly implies that they are. That isn't science. It is ideology. Nothing else.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
It is comparing his 1999 adjustments to his current adjustments. So whats happened, something suddenly occured to render the old adjustments insufficient?
I suggest you study statistical analysis extensively along with doing some extensive real world experience in collecting data which originates from a source that produces very large volumes of data points. Then in between 2 years and 10 you will be able to answer that question yourself. It would take even less time to see such adjustments made even if you didn't understand why.
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008. Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming. Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008. Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming. Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008
Out of curiosity have you ever bothered to look into the reasoning behind the adjustments? That sounds like the kind of question these scientists would be rather happy to answer, rather than constant condemnation, harassment and demands for access to readily available data.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008
Out of curiosity have you ever bothered to look into the reasoning behind the adjustments? That sounds like the kind of question these scientists would be rather happy to answer, rather than constant condemnation, harassment and demands for access to readily available data.
-
Hmmm. 1. Following The Paper Trail Of Mike’s Nature Trick[^] 2. NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade[^] - Watts up with that? 3. A Reconstruction Of Unadjusted US Temperatures[^] I suppose in some Carrollian Universe, telling us 3 times would make this true. However, back in the real world, Anthony Watts points out in the link above: ... 1998 and 1934 have swapped positions for the 'warmest year'. 1934 went down by about 0.3°C while 1998 went up by about 0.4°C for a total of about 0.7°C... In fairness, most of this is the fault of NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson, who have applied new adjustments in the form of USHCN2 (for US data) and GHCN3 (to global data). These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism. I.E., nothing to do with Hansen at all. He also remarks: As Steve McIntyre often says: "You have to watch the pea under the thimble with these guys". Yeh, publishing papers (to one of which Watts provided station siting data) on their revised methodology for review, and giving over a year's notice of the impending changes, before 'springing' them on an unsuspecting public. You really have to watch that luminous pea under the glass thimble. :rolleyes:
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism
Why are the new adjustments different to the old, and why doesnt CRUs series show the same as Hansens since it uses the GHCN set? Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then ads himself.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008. Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming. Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008.
Wrong. What I am stating is that the link posted doesn't address why they changed. Only that they did. The first is not the same as the second.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming.
Wrong. Wrong not because your conclusion itself is wrong but rather that what you posted does not lead to that conclusion.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
Ridiculous nonsense in the context of the link that you posted. Even more ridiculous than the link itself. If you want to challenge science then the best way to do it is scientifically. Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
-
No, I havent. I am sure they would be as valid as Hansen using satelite images at night to adjust for UHI; ie, questionable. (Given that a temp station can be badly sitede AND no where near street lights)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
No, I havent.
Obviously. And just as obvious the link you posted doesn't bother to do that either.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I am sure they would be as valid as Hansen using satelite images at night to adjust for UHI; ie, questionable. (Given that a temp station can be badly sitede AND no where near street lights)
You are of course free to believe anything you want. But if you (or anyone) wish to claim that the scientific process is flawed then you must actually demonstrate that based on the scientific process. Neither your statments nor the link have anything to do with the scientific process.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
No, I havent.
Obviously. And just as obvious the link you posted doesn't bother to do that either.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I am sure they would be as valid as Hansen using satelite images at night to adjust for UHI; ie, questionable. (Given that a temp station can be badly sitede AND no where near street lights)
You are of course free to believe anything you want. But if you (or anyone) wish to claim that the scientific process is flawed then you must actually demonstrate that based on the scientific process. Neither your statments nor the link have anything to do with the scientific process.
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks. You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality. Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Ok, so you are suggesting that the 'valid reasons' for adjustments changed between 1999 and 2008.
Wrong. What I am stating is that the link posted doesn't address why they changed. Only that they did. The first is not the same as the second.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Clearly they did. It was 10 years of lack of warming.
Wrong. Wrong not because your conclusion itself is wrong but rather that what you posted does not lead to that conclusion.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Oh, by the way, the CRU data set shows the ten years of lack of warming by the way. Clearly they have different reasons than Hansen and didnt change their adjustments. Perhaps it is called honesty.
Ridiculous nonsense in the context of the link that you posted. Even more ridiculous than the link itself. If you want to challenge science then the best way to do it is scientifically. Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
You suggested they were valid so I was replying to what you said not the article. But if you want to back out of answering the quesiton then I wont stop you. And yes, what I cobcluded is my conclusion, naturally. :)
jschell wrote:
Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
Neither has much of what is produced by these scientists, as can be seen by their email conversations. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
ict558 wrote:
These adjustments are the primary source of this revisionism
Why are the new adjustments different to the old, and why doesnt CRUs series show the same as Hansens since it uses the GHCN set? Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then ads himself.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Why are the new adjustments different to the old
Were you really interested, you would have used the links to GHCN-M v3[^] [PDF] and USHCN-M v2[^] to read up on the nature of the changes.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
why doesnt CRU's series show the same as Hansen's since it uses the GHCN set?
Because CRU augments a subset of GHCN-M with other datasets, and each processes their data differently?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then adds himself.
Let me quote Steven Mosher, co-author of 'The Crutape Letters' and an active leader in the effort to get open access to the data and code underlying climate science: "If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong." He and others have each developed their own code to perform the GISS process. By reading and re-reading the description in the IPCC report, and correcting their misconceptions, they have confirmed the GISS results. They certainly have discovered no sleight-of-hand. It takes longer than eyeballing two graphs and shouting 'fraud', and it is not as much fun as pillorying Hansen.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks. You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality. Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks.
Personal opinion. It has nothing to do with science.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality
Utter nonsense. And I suspect it it a personal bias which is not based on actual knowledge of statistical knowledge nor analysis of the data methodology represented in the link given that you haven't actually presented any arguments of that.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
What part of my previous posts did you not understand? I am NOT commenting on the validity of the methodology. I am commenting on the link and your comments. Neither of those provide any actual scientific evidence that there is an actual problem with the methodology involved. Both you and the author of that link might as well claim that there is a problem because the last astrology reading that you had said so.
-
You suggested they were valid so I was replying to what you said not the article. But if you want to back out of answering the quesiton then I wont stop you. And yes, what I cobcluded is my conclusion, naturally. :)
jschell wrote:
Neither your statement nor the link have anything to do with science.
Neither has much of what is produced by these scientists, as can be seen by their email conversations. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
You suggested they were valid
Perhaps that is your problem. You are not actually reading what is written but rather what you think is written. I did NOT claim it was valid.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Neither has much of what is produced by these scientists, as can be seen by their email conversations.
Which has nothing at all to do with the link nor what I have posted since then.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Why are the new adjustments different to the old
Were you really interested, you would have used the links to GHCN-M v3[^] [PDF] and USHCN-M v2[^] to read up on the nature of the changes.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
why doesnt CRU's series show the same as Hansen's since it uses the GHCN set?
Because CRU augments a subset of GHCN-M with other datasets, and each processes their data differently?
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Perhaps the 'most of it' isnt that much compared to what Hansen then adds himself.
Let me quote Steven Mosher, co-author of 'The Crutape Letters' and an active leader in the effort to get open access to the data and code underlying climate science: "If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong." He and others have each developed their own code to perform the GISS process. By reading and re-reading the description in the IPCC report, and correcting their misconceptions, they have confirmed the GISS results. They certainly have discovered no sleight-of-hand. It takes longer than eyeballing two graphs and shouting 'fraud', and it is not as much fun as pillorying Hansen.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
ict558 wrote:
"If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong."
Lets look at Hansens methods are: 1) UHI adjustments using night time satellite images showing artificial light density. While this is an indication of the degree a region is urbanised it does not answer the positioning of individual stations. If a station is badly sited locally, ie above concrete or tarmac. Or near a source of heat, then the density of street lights in an area a few square miles around it is not going to show that. 2) Hansen uses a 1500 mile smothing algorithym so that the temperatures of a particular station get applied to a vast area. If you look at his colour temperature map you might ask yourself why Greenland is 5 degrees hotter. The answer is because the station data applied to the 15000 mile region comes from a station at an airport. A station in a low density area but regularly impacted by jet exhaust. 3) Station selection has also caused alarm. Over the last 20 years less and less stations are used to compose the data set, favouring lower altitude and lower lattitude stations and stations in urbanised environments, such as airports. A number of papers have been published which attempt to show that this is of no concern. However it does leave a question as to why stations have been deselected. When you add all that together I have very little faith in his product. Tell me, have you ever looked at raw station data from around the world?
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Nothing to do with belief, thats how Hansen adjusts for UHI. And it sucks.
Personal opinion. It has nothing to do with science.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
You asked me to refute it on a scientific basis but his methods barely deserve a refutation of scientific quality
Utter nonsense. And I suspect it it a personal bias which is not based on actual knowledge of statistical knowledge nor analysis of the data methodology represented in the link given that you haven't actually presented any arguments of that.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Go to the surface stations web site and look at the placing of them. You will clearly see how 'scientific' Hansens adjustments are.
What part of my previous posts did you not understand? I am NOT commenting on the validity of the methodology. I am commenting on the link and your comments. Neither of those provide any actual scientific evidence that there is an actual problem with the methodology involved. Both you and the author of that link might as well claim that there is a problem because the last astrology reading that you had said so.
"I am not saying anything about the validity of his methodology" you say. I then poiint out Hansen uses night time satellite images to adjust for UHI and sugfgest you go to surfacestations.org to see how stations can be badly sited in an area of very low density street lighting and you say: "your comments [do not] provide any actual scientific evidence that there is an actual problem with the methodology involved." I just pointed out to you how you can clearly see how his method is not good enough. Go take a look rather than bitching at me about it.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
"I am not saying anything about the validity of his methodology" you say. I then poiint out Hansen uses night time satellite images to adjust for UHI and sugfgest you go to surfacestations.org to see how stations can be badly sited in an area of very low density street lighting and you say: "your comments [do not] provide any actual scientific evidence that there is an actual problem with the methodology involved." I just pointed out to you how you can clearly see how his method is not good enough. Go take a look rather than bitching at me about it.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I just pointed out to you how you can clearly see how his method is not good enough
That wasn't in this sub thread. It wasn't in the link and it wasn't in your first comment either.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I then poiint out Hansen uses night time satellite images to adjust for UHI and sugfgest you go to surfacestations.org to see how stations can be badly sited in an area of very low density street lighting and you say:
That by itself doesn't seem convincing to me. But perhaps you actually expanded on that, measured the problems with stations (not hypothetical) as a statistical variance and then applied that to the existing data.
-
ict558 wrote:
"If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong."
Lets look at Hansens methods are: 1) UHI adjustments using night time satellite images showing artificial light density. While this is an indication of the degree a region is urbanised it does not answer the positioning of individual stations. If a station is badly sited locally, ie above concrete or tarmac. Or near a source of heat, then the density of street lights in an area a few square miles around it is not going to show that. 2) Hansen uses a 1500 mile smothing algorithym so that the temperatures of a particular station get applied to a vast area. If you look at his colour temperature map you might ask yourself why Greenland is 5 degrees hotter. The answer is because the station data applied to the 15000 mile region comes from a station at an airport. A station in a low density area but regularly impacted by jet exhaust. 3) Station selection has also caused alarm. Over the last 20 years less and less stations are used to compose the data set, favouring lower altitude and lower lattitude stations and stations in urbanised environments, such as airports. A number of papers have been published which attempt to show that this is of no concern. However it does leave a question as to why stations have been deselected. When you add all that together I have very little faith in his product. Tell me, have you ever looked at raw station data from around the world?
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Lets look at Hansens methods are:
Some perfectly valid reasons why the presented data might be incorrect. You have a theory (actually several) with no evidence. Just like any other theory actual evidence must be collected that demonstrates that the different parts are in fact valid and significant.
-
ict558 wrote:
"If people thought that the GISS approach was deeply flawed, they are deeply wrong."
Lets look at Hansens methods are: 1) UHI adjustments using night time satellite images showing artificial light density. While this is an indication of the degree a region is urbanised it does not answer the positioning of individual stations. If a station is badly sited locally, ie above concrete or tarmac. Or near a source of heat, then the density of street lights in an area a few square miles around it is not going to show that. 2) Hansen uses a 1500 mile smothing algorithym so that the temperatures of a particular station get applied to a vast area. If you look at his colour temperature map you might ask yourself why Greenland is 5 degrees hotter. The answer is because the station data applied to the 15000 mile region comes from a station at an airport. A station in a low density area but regularly impacted by jet exhaust. 3) Station selection has also caused alarm. Over the last 20 years less and less stations are used to compose the data set, favouring lower altitude and lower lattitude stations and stations in urbanised environments, such as airports. A number of papers have been published which attempt to show that this is of no concern. However it does leave a question as to why stations have been deselected. When you add all that together I have very little faith in his product. Tell me, have you ever looked at raw station data from around the world?
============================== Nothing to say.
This thread is "Blatant fraud in action".
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Lets look at Hansens methods are:
Nothing here to suggests blatant fraud. Each point is discussed in detail by GISS, and their reason for adopting the processes they do is explained. Bernie Madoff was a fraudster, nobody knew what he was doing with the money he was given. GISS are not fraudsters, anybody can find out what they are doing with the temperatures they are given. Points: 1. Which is why other proxies for 'urbanization' are currently being investigated. E.G.: The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends Zeke Hausfather, Steven Mosher, Matthew Menne (NCDC NOAA), Claude Williams (NCDC NOAA), and Nick Stokes. 2. GISS provides two radii of influence, 250km and 1200km (the standard analysis). "... it is possible that the GISS analysis overstates the magnitude of Arctic warming in regions where data are extrapolated ..." 3. "GISS uses all of the GHCN stations that are available, but the number of reporting meteorological stations in 2009 was only 2490, compared to ∼6300 usable stations in the entire 130 year GHCN record." So they weren't deselected.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
If you look at his colour temperature map you might ask yourself why Greenland is 5 degrees hotter.
Anomalies/Trends, Period, F/C, hotter than what?
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I just pointed out to you how you can clearly see how his method is not good enough
That wasn't in this sub thread. It wasn't in the link and it wasn't in your first comment either.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
I then poiint out Hansen uses night time satellite images to adjust for UHI and sugfgest you go to surfacestations.org to see how stations can be badly sited in an area of very low density street lighting and you say:
That by itself doesn't seem convincing to me. But perhaps you actually expanded on that, measured the problems with stations (not hypothetical) as a statistical variance and then applied that to the existing data.
jschell wrote:
But perhaps you actually expanded on that, measured the problems with stations (not hypothetical) as a statistical variance and then applied that to the existing data
Yeah, sure. No, what I did was look at how individual stations are sited and decide that adjusting for that using satellite images is insuficient. In stead urbanised stations should be rejected, and only rural ones kept in the data set.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
This thread is "Blatant fraud in action".
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Lets look at Hansens methods are:
Nothing here to suggests blatant fraud. Each point is discussed in detail by GISS, and their reason for adopting the processes they do is explained. Bernie Madoff was a fraudster, nobody knew what he was doing with the money he was given. GISS are not fraudsters, anybody can find out what they are doing with the temperatures they are given. Points: 1. Which is why other proxies for 'urbanization' are currently being investigated. E.G.: The Impact of Urbanization on Land Temperature Trends Zeke Hausfather, Steven Mosher, Matthew Menne (NCDC NOAA), Claude Williams (NCDC NOAA), and Nick Stokes. 2. GISS provides two radii of influence, 250km and 1200km (the standard analysis). "... it is possible that the GISS analysis overstates the magnitude of Arctic warming in regions where data are extrapolated ..." 3. "GISS uses all of the GHCN stations that are available, but the number of reporting meteorological stations in 2009 was only 2490, compared to ∼6300 usable stations in the entire 130 year GHCN record." So they weren't deselected.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
If you look at his colour temperature map you might ask yourself why Greenland is 5 degrees hotter.
Anomalies/Trends, Period, F/C, hotter than what?
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
Oh stop being so reasonable! :mad: You are destroying a perfectly good rant! :mad: ;P Who was it who finally squeezed Hansens data and methods out of him a few years back and pointed out a massive error in his work that actually ended up with the 30's being hotter than the 90's? I forget who it was, but Hansen has been anything BUT open and honest. As for reporting stations, I am not sure I believe you. If this is such an important issue how can station data be left unreported? The scientific world wil surely extract some more of the tax payers loot in order to make sure station data is forthcoming. As for greenland, its the anomoly. An anomoly derived fron the temperature sensor at the end of run way 12, right where the jet trubines get cranked up. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
jschell wrote:
But perhaps you actually expanded on that, measured the problems with stations (not hypothetical) as a statistical variance and then applied that to the existing data
Yeah, sure. No, what I did was look at how individual stations are sited and decide that adjusting for that using satellite images is insuficient. In stead urbanised stations should be rejected, and only rural ones kept in the data set.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
Yeah, sure.
Not sure what you mean. What I proposed fits within the scientific methodology.
Erudite_Eric wrote:
No, what I did was look at how individual stations are sited and decide that adjusting for that using satellite images is insuficient. In stead urbanised stations should be rejected, and only rural ones kept in the data set.
That is a statement of an unproven theory. It seems provable but also must account for showing that once the data is massaged that way that it still represents a reasonable representation of actual weather. But until proven it does not refute the original link.