Why My Approach Is (By Far) The Best Approach

Posted: July 2, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.
.
‘Steve Goddard’ defends his approach to checking the temperature data.

Real Science

Every method has its advantages and disadvantages.

The USHCN database has more than 81,000,000 daily temperature readings going to 1895. It is a scientific obscenity to attempt to “adjust” that many records. Adjustments open the door to confirmation bias or outright fraud, and will invariably make the data less meaningful. I call this “tampering.”

There is no need to “adjust” the data. With a database that large, the distribution of error will be uniformly distributed between “too low” and “too high” and average out to zero. Many fields of science and engineering depend on this principle.

Use of anomalies completely hides baseline shifts, as NOAA has done.

Infilling is exactly the wrong thing to do, when station loss is biased towards loss of colder rural stations. It simply corrupts the temperature record further.

Gridding is just barely above the noise level in the US, because the USHCN stations are relatively…

View original post 43 more words

Comments
  1. Konrad says:

    There is no “best approach” regarding surface station data.

    Due to UHI and micro site degeneration issues there is no way to unscramble the egg.

    BEST? More time in the blender? Nothing will work.

    With regard to climate, surface station data is unfit for purpose. Any attempt to use it to debate climate issues speaks to motive.

    Anyone making claims about AGW based on manipulated surface station data is lying. There is no if. There is no but. There is no maybe. It truly is that simple.

  2. Chaeremon says:

    The mathematical manipulative approach can never be the best approach, and that is what Steve Goddard says. Not more. Not less.

    Consider two cells A,B in the grid (units and object labels are of no importance here, it’s maths that we are doing here, m a t h s).

    Manipulate cell A by 1/5 and cell B by 2/8 and observe that 1/5 is Less Than 2/8.
    Manipulate cell A by 6/8 and cell B by 4/5 and observe that 6/8 is Less Than 4/5.

    Now sum up the manipulations per cell, that is 7/13 and 6/13 respectively.

    Soon after you observed that 7/13 is Greater Than 6/13 you’ve inevitably contradicted the whole manipulative approach — mathematically.

    This is what Steve Goddard says, illustrated by me here with just some underappreciated fractional maths, about the mathematical approach. Not more. Not less.

    Disclaimer: the example figures above are common knowledge, extendible to whatnot, and freely accessible in articles (etc) on the Internet. I’m not saying that Steve Goddard used them in his objection of the mathematical manipulative approach.

  3. geran says:

    Goddard made some real discoveries. No matter how NOAA tries to cover-up, the fact is the results of their “adjustments” cooled the past and warmed the present.

    (Thanks for fixing the mod setting, Sir Rog.)

    [Reply] A cockup on our part, sorry your previous got binned. TB

  4. Roger Andrews says:

    There’s a simple approach that works most of the time:

    Go through the raw station records.

    Throw out the bad ones (they’re not too hard to pick out).

    Average the good ones.

    Don’t adjust anything.

  5. tallbloke says:

    The great global warming swindle – Full version

  6. oldbrew says:

    Weren’t they recently admitting surface station temperature data was ‘lousy’?
    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/06/apparent-pause-in-global-warming-blamed-on-lousy-data/

    Sea level data was supposed to be more ‘reliable’. Problem:

    ‘Sea level experts point out that rising sea levels change the diameter of the earth and change its rotational speed in the same fashion that a figure skater slows a spin by extending the arms. No unusual change in rotational speed has been observed. Ergo, sea levels are not changing in any unusual way.’
    http://www.globalclimatescam.com/2014/06/apparent-pause-in-global-warming-blamed-on-lousy-data/comment-page-1/#comment-156148

    Roll out the next excuse for no new warming…

  7. Chaeremon says:

    Oldbrew wrote: No unusual change in rotational speed has been observed.

    Except that it does (change 😉 )

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Characterization+implications+intradecadal+variations+length+day

    Authors R Holme, O de Viron, Nature, 2013, cited by 5.

    Next excuse prophecy: Holme & Viron attribute a non-tidal component of LoD change to atmosphere (gasp /sarc), atmosphere contains CO2, ergo: more CO2 is more change to LoD (!)

  8. tallbloke says:

    For a novel approach to LOD change, check my PRP paper
    Apparent relations between planetary spin, orbit, and solar differential rotation

    Click to access prp-1-199-2013.pdf

  9. Chaeremon says:

    @tallbloke: if you consider that the z axis displacement of the centre
    of mass of the solar system [your words] must result [my emphasis] in geometric manifestation of orbital precession, then the following group of eminent researchers have a message for you [keyword appetizer: spin orbit coupling, as below so above]:
    http://drmyronevans.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/2653-fundamental-origin-of-the-orbital-precession-in-the-thomas-precession/

    Their work may keep one busy studying for more than just 52 weekends, the number of papers is huge and the number of revised concepts (and replacements) can be boggling to non-researchers …

  10. oldbrew says:

    Another data-fiddling opportunity satellite launched today to measure CO2.

    ‘As sunlight is reflected from the Earth’s surface, gases such as CO2 and oxygen absorb this light at specific wavelengths. OCO-2 contains three spectrometers tuned to detect changes in the intensity of this absorption.’
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/02/reborn-carbon-mission-launches-after-five-year-wait

    Could it be better than a privately owned facility on top of a volcano aka Mauna Loa observatory.

    ‘At 14,000 feet, there is 40% less oxygen than at sea level’
    http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/info/vis/visiting-mauna-kea/visiting-the-summit.html

  11. mkelly says:

    ‘As sunlight is reflected from the Earth’s surface, gases such as CO2 and oxygen absorb this light at specific wavelengths. OCO-2 contains three spectrometers tuned to detect changes in the intensity of this absorption.’

    What if it finds out that the PPM of CO2 is really 352?

  12. oldbrew says:

    mkelly: wash your mouth out 😉

  13. mkelly says: July 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    ‘As sunlight is reflected from the Earth’s surface, gases such as CO2 and oxygen absorb this light at specific wavelengths. OCO-2 contains three spectrometers tuned to detect changes in the intensity of this absorption.’

    What if it finds out that the PPM of CO2 is really 352?

    NASA will adjust the interpretation to agree with, “We must destroy Coal mining, in favor of natural gas FRRAKing, in order to save the planet for the children”.

  14. Gail Combs says:

    NASA will adjust the interpretation to agree with, “We must destroy Coal mining, in favor of natural gas FRRAKing, in order to save the planet for the children”. produce more profits for the oil/natural gas cartel.

    That is why Shell Oil and BP and Enron started the scam in the first place – KILL THE COMPETITION

  15. Tim Folkerts says:

    “There is no need to “adjust” the data. With a database that large, the distribution of error will be uniformly distributed between “too low” and “too high” and average out to zero.

    This is simply not correct. Errors do NOT always average out to zero.

    Heck, Steve even acknowledges that there are systematic errors of that don’t average out to zero (“we know there is systematic UHI producing spurious warming and possibly systematic TOBS producing spurious cooling.”), yet still comes to the incorrect conclusion. For example, compare a high of 41 C in the middle of a city this year to a high of 40 C in the same location 100 years ago. This is not a sign of GLOBAL warming, but rather a sign LOCAL warming. Any attempt to estimate GLOBAL warming needs to adjust to SYSTEMATIC changes in environment or instrumentation.

    PS. The corrections are listed here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL . It is legitimate to argue against specific adjustments (or argue that errors were made when trying to apply reasonable adjustment), but you can’t simply assume that any and all adjustments must be uniformly distributed between “too low” and “too high”.

  16. Chaeremon says:

    @Tim Folkerts who says: Errors do NOT always average out to zero.

    Tim, I understand your buzz, but please think: you cannot distinguish an Unknown value from a False value, unless you are G_d?

  17. tom0mason says:

    I wonder if all these adjustments are also smoothing-out the extremes of variablity of the past (say before 1980) and so making the current period look unusually variable.
    This would add credence to the ‘team’ claim of weather getting more extreme.