Hansen/NASA created US warming?

You are still operating from the premise that the data was falsified


Conspiracy theory

 

Christ on a crutch I just spent an hour going through this thing. Has anyone else read about the adjustments, extrapolations, guesswork, area of resolution, statements of conclusion without reference or evidence provided, and not a single mention, NOT ONE, of levels of confidence around the mean, ANY MEAN, not a single density function of the uncertainty involved around that mean or even another mention of central tendency to give the reader the slightest hint of skewness, this thing is an absolute statistical nightmare. Not a mention that I could not find a mention of correlation among the various uncertainties, no measure of those uncertainties other than to recognize they exist, no mention of the probability of the mean, no confidence level expressed of the mean, hell there wasn't a SINGLE discussion on variability of the mean at ANY sampling size, relying completely on the bare minimum of sampling to even THINK that a monthly number is representative. Christ on a crutch there is an entire niche inside statistics on sampling size alone, and the certainty around the mean based on that size, and not a WORD was mentioned on this topic. Not ONE.

The entire thing was multiply numbers by numbers, each multiplication making the REAL problem worse...and representing the mean with certainty when their very methods guarantee that this is the one thing they CAN'T have.

I really don't know what to say. I find it difficult to believe that the language of science, statistics, doesn't even appear to have been considered in the way they designed this thing. The number of sampling stations available for a reasonable level of confidence on just a central tendency temperature inside a country the size of the US alone is questionable, depending on the variability they claim to want to dispense with, which they also can't or won't quantify. Or know better than to try and quantify?

Thank you for providing this insightful piece of work. And Houston, we have a problem.

 

Read the paper. Tell me, can you find where the measurement of uncertainty around the mean is larger, or smaller, than the mean itself? And in which direction? This isn't about even the quality of the data at this point, it is about the incessant changing, correcting, adjusting and multiplication of error resulting in a mean presented with certainty, when it is IMPOSSIBLE from the given method in that paper to do so.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php

 

No it has nothing to do with a lack of comprehension in relation to the papers and everything to do with conspiracy ideation, Find and issue and twist it until it looks as if someone is the "bad guy" who somehow managed to either fool every other climate and related scientist on the planet but also entrapped the vast majority of these people into this conspiracy

Tell me - do you think he strokes a white cat and goes Bwa ha ha!!!

 

You can't answer the question. Thank you for focusing on another topic to prove it. Perhaps I should ask, do you even UNDERSTAND the question I am asking? Do you understand what was even explained in the latter Hansen reference?

 

Sure I do. Windy doesn't. Explain it to him. It's the guys on your side who don't understand how science works.

 

He is questioning thr legitimacy of the adjustments.

it has already bern established that gansen is the author of the adjustment. So its a one man conspiracy. Your argument is pointless and wrong.

 

Let ne get this straight. Thinking that Hansen is a bad apple amounts to a conspiracy. How does one man amount to a conspiracy?

This says everything about you nothing of PP. You have no other argument do you? You have scream that every argument against your religion is a conspiracy theory evwn when we are talking about one person.

There is no such thing as a conspiracy of one. But you don't care you have no other argument.

Leave the forum if you cant make a legitimate argument. One man conspiracy lol.

 

So you're a geologist employed by an oil company. That certainly explains your enormous personal bias on this issue. To quote Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Nevertheless, when you prove yourself unable to find a scientific paper after five days of argument, and your entire argument depends on the non-existence of said paper, and said paper was found by myself with less than one minute of internet search, all I can say is, the oil companies must really be scraping the bottom of the resumé pile these days.

Apparently you're the one who cannot read. Please point out where I claimed to have a "review". Or withdraw your false statement. Any scientist would know that peer reviews are usually anonymous, and never published.

That's not all you did. You also made very assertive statements (IN ALL CAPS!) that turned out to be false ("Hansen ... changed the US temperature history"). And now having been shown to be wrong, it is you who are avoiding the particulars, namely, that your original assertions were false. And that therefore this entire thread is bogus.

Whether Hansen did or not, we know for sure that Spencer certainly didn't do that. Because here we are fifteen years after the fact, and not one peep from Spencer saying that the GISS procedures are invalid. If he had a complaint, he certainly would have published it by now. Where are the figures, tables, charts, and math that Spencer used to destroy Hansen? Nowhere. In fact, subsequent analyses, using entirely different statistical techniques (BEST, Cowtan & Way) confirm the GISS methods quite well, and have shown that the GISS results are in fact more robust than HADCRUT4.

Wonderful! In that case, please let us know when your epic takedown of Hansen's procedures makes it past peer-review. I can hardly wait.

Oh, and don't forget to pre-notify Hansen et al. with a full explanation of why it is in fact invalid to remove the Urban Heat Island effect, as they did in 1999-2000, and why the climate record is better with all that extra warming left in.

 

The guys on my side? You mean my scientist colleagues who have been doing this since the 70's? At 15 years experience, I am a newbie, true, but they are as capable of recognizing sample size issues as I am.

Did you actually read the latter reference you provided? Do you even understand uncertainty around the mean, and why it matters? Skewed distributions (because certainly there was no evidence provided in that paper as to the shape of ANY distribution that I noticed)? Do you actually read science, or just throw it around as a defense without a CLUE as to how it works, and why independent review is so critical? Do you even know what a "mean" is? Surely that one was covered to whatever school you went to...maybe? You took a math class? Once? Maybe?

 

No to both assumptions on your part.

Here is the crux of my original question.

"Do we have the "official" reason for why altering historical data series is acceptable within the land of climate science? "

The answer to WHY was not provided in the papers referenced...but can be deduced from the papers referenced. The answer would be, "because we needed to apply more corrections to the raw data".

So strictly speaking, it wasn't a change of historical data, it was deciding to multiply it by various factors to deliver a different answer. In engineering, when there is a difference between the empirical and theoretical, we also apply FUDGE FACTORS to make one equal the other. When the US wasn't warming as expected, it would be completely reasonable to create fudge factors, if one were so inclined.

But this isn't the critical flaw that Hansen's paper highlights.

You did not claim it was a review, perhaps because you are not aware of any such independent oversight either. But thank you for the reference demonstrating why it might have been best to avoid such a review.

Horse(*)(*)(*)(*). Peer reviews are almost never anonymous, professional organizations doing an independent review will deliver those very people to your doorstep sometimes and you can duke it out in real time. And I have a written record of every peer review that was ever done on my work, including outside peer reviewed journals as well the internal documents.

Are you claiming that Hansen doesn't do the kind of peer review so common in other research fields, or your experience in scientific peer review is different than that which I have previously described?

He did. It was in the figures in your latter reference. He provided that information himself. What he did NOT do was alter original data, instead he multiplied original data by corrections and multipliers and large scale factors to create a different temperature history. So yes, he changed the temperature history, he just didn't do it by altering raw data. He appears to have changed what raw data he decided to choose (called "cherry picking" by some, but we don't have the independent review on that yet do we?), but I would be remiss if I didn't emphasize this distinction.

That isn't the problem with Hansen's paper either. Can you not see it, or are you trying hard NOT to see it?

 

Deniers Spencer and Christy's UAH data pretty much matches the ground station data the deniers claim is manipulated!

 

He can't discuss issues of sampling size. He can't discuss issues of resolution. He CAN'T discuss the self serving conclusions without evidence or references issued within the "science" provided. He certainly has no independent review of the manipulations and corrections or the uncertainty that goes unaccounted for within the provided reference.

So he made the best, most legitimate argument he could. It is a conspiracy to dare to question.

Proves he doesn't know anything about science, because that IS science. Plus he doesn't know dick about peer review, or at least the peer review internal to various government scientific and regulatory bodies, professional organizations or the science rags I am familiar with. Maybe NASA has a super secret neat as crude peer review system that Poor Debater is familiar with and I am not, it is possible. Him already having provided evidence of not understanding science generally wouldn't lead many to that conclusion, but it is POSSIBLE that he knows something I don't. Never worked with NASA before in my life, or climate folks outside of the basic paleoclimate geologist folks. Met Spencer only once at an AAPG meeting. Didn't ask him about NASA peer review procedures.

 

Is this for the data in question, in this case the US, or for somewhere else? The issue are the methods by which Hansen corrected, adjusted, selective picked temperature points he wished, changing the temperature profile of the United States. Do you have the satellite records for just the US profile? That would be interesting.

 

It's global data. I'm looking for a US comparison of the different data sets. If I find one I will post it.

Here is another global chart, if the global data matches then it is logical that the US data will also match.

 

Here's a chart showing satellite and ground station temperature data for the US. Maybe Hansen corrected GISSTemp data because it needed correcting.

 

Who's in charge of adjusting the data?

 

The delta-T in the 80's high vs. the last point pretty much match the difference in corrected NOAA data between Portland Oregon's 1986 high August to 2014 August. However, if you track down the historical August 1986 high average before recent corrections, it was 2.3F higher.

Is their raw data vs. corrected data available, along with concise methodology of corrections, or is that some magic secret?

 

Oh! I understand and better yet I understand the psychology of conspiracy ideation, Underpinning that is a desire to simplify the world by rejecting data and looking for simple almost paranoid explanations

The world is warming but instead of accepting the scientific consensus on this there is an attempt to try to find that it is all the result of some "evil doer" embroiling scientists across the globe in a fraud

 

More importantly, since these papers have been peer reviewed to a fare thee well AND minutely scrutinised by the denialist blogosphere - why has no one else had an issue with this?

ans:- because there is nothing to have an issue with

 

Deniers Spencer and Christy.

 

So far, it has been established that scientists themselves are doing the adjusting, and no one has provided any independent review of these adjustments, corrections, fudge factors, whatever they are called in climate land.

Certainly no one has yet referenced any independent verification by the appropriate statisticians that the errors, correlations and uncertainties within the methods used don't overwhelm any ability to find a trend. The "modeling noise" problem, so common to frequency and signal folks. Amazing that as recently as early 2000's climate folks weren't incorporating experts in other sciences to validate if their systems have any value whatsoever. There was no sign of it whatsoever with Hansen's paper.

it strikes me that this issue might be similar to what folks did to Mann's work, although that statistical issue sounded more like the survivor effect than just someone who doesn't know diddly about statistical mechanics.

 

Now THAT is a good question. And the entire purpose of an independent review, PARTICULARLY by the experts in other fields, in this case, basic statistical issues of aggregation, sample size problems, calculated confidence levels, distributions of uncertainty and calculated error because of it.

I didn't see a single probability density function in that paper, no expressions of confidence, it was as though the very language of science had been ignored in writing the paper. Just give me some of those adjustments, let me correct for stuff, and let's get some numbers multiplied together pronto!

 

If science is just a conspiracy, how do you think the computer you're using to read this post works? Magic?