I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.
Well, what with Fall, et al., and so forth, Eli set about looking up his words of wisdom, and wadda you know, the Bunny did a good job four years ago
Sampling bias is indeed the issue. Pielke's experimental design is clear evidence of card forcing or ignorance. However, let us get beyond that. There is some possibility that over years all of the sites in the US (maybe even including Alaska) will be photographed. Some of these photo's exist, however, as single photos they are useless, because what is measured are changes in average temperature, anomalies, not absolute temperatures, so what is needed is an historical archive of photos, e.g. a continuing series that shows changes at the sites.Oh, and there was something about that engineering level stuff
OTOH, Tom Karl's project seeks to bootstrap information about past and future measurements at a large number of sites by setting up a small, optimal network which can be used as a yardstick to check the larger USHCN and the US CO-OP networks. By implication this is then a check on the Global Networks, AND on the various corrections that have been applied to the raw data.
The bit about engineers always keeping their data available is a sad joke to anyone who has ever had to fix an old piece of equipment that has been orphaned. Get off it.But more interesting is a quote from the body of the post
Now Ho Chi Pielke Sr. is providing reinforcements by getting his irregulars to go out there and take pictures of stations in the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN). Anthony Watts is setting up a web site for such pictures. The goal, of course is to falsify GISSTEMPThe links to Roger Sr.'s old web site are dead, but it is pretty clear what the goal of the Surface Stations Project were, and who started the ball rolling, moreover the original statement of purpose was (from a comment at RR)
Anonymous said...
-
Here's the real goal of the project (that Peilke has apparently put his seal of approval on, even if unintentionally)
"If you have a digital camera, a portable handheld GPS device with accuracy within 100 feet or better, and the ability to follow simple instructions, you can help us demonstrate that many of the assumptions about climate change based on the surface temperature record may in fact be due to faulty data!"
If you know anything at all about measuring temperature, you'll see that these sites above don't meet the basic criteria for scientifically valid observations. Yet, the data from these weather stations is part of the USHCN data set and is used by NASA to model climate, the IPCC to publish reports, and your government to make policy decisions.
"High Claims Shifter"
ReplyDelete-- by Horatio Algeranon
He drifted into Climate City
From a weather blog, that was so pretty
With pics of claimed "contaminations"
At USHCN Surface Stations.
"Hang 'em high" is what he said
"Until the upward trend is dead."
But the Climate townsfolk flat refused
They said "The data should be used"
"The trend is real, if you do the math"
"Don't chuck the baby with the bath."
The High Claims Shifter anxiously laughed
"Just take a look at what I've graphed"
"It's widely cited (on Fox News)
'The Impact of Flaming Barbecues
On temperatures at Surface Stations' --
With perfect R-squared correlations!"
"My Nobel paper is in the works
That proves those NOAA folks are jerks."
The Shifter rode off toward the sun
Which made some think that he was gone
But he re-appeared in a later year
"I have returned... and looky here"
"The trend in means might perchance be real"
But who even cares?, cuz here's the deal"
"What I've been saying all along
Is 'Temperature extremes are simply wrong.' "
"Hang 'em high until they're dead
'The extremes are wrong' is what I said..."
I think the title is missing.
ReplyDeleteEli, don't forget the central dodge of magically transforming the largely seat-of-the-pants CRN *siting* criteria (where overkill was a desirable since the point was to eliminate any *possible* influence) into criteria for rating an existing network.
ReplyDeleteMost ludicrous was doing so and (as you say) simultaneously being uninterested in using the now-considerable CRN record to double-check the USHCN, noting that this is a task made very easy since one of the CRN criteria was to locate each station near a USHCN station so as to allow for easy correlation of the records. But we know what that shows, don't we? (A fine independent research project for John N-G, but probably not interesting to him since RP Sr.'s hand wouldn't be available to hold while undertaking it.)
IIRC there was a famous instance of Watts going apeshit over a Tucson (UA campus) USHCN station which was horribly biased I MEAN JUST LOOK AT IT IT'S PLACED ON BITS OF GRAVEL IN THE MIDDLE OF A PARKING LOT!!! but it turned out when someone (not RP Sr., Watts or any team member thereof) looked that the data of the nearby CRN station, which had already been in operation for several years, lined up pretty well and, by the by, it was located on typical southern AZ desert terrain that bears a strong resemblance to a parking lot with bits of gravel scattered on it.
"I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."
ReplyDeleteMr Watts, Tribune Review 2007, after about 4% of the data had been collected.
Phil Clarke
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCan the Rabett explain why so few climate related blogs have mentioned this paper at all (so far) and the egg on face issue it raises for one of its co-authors?
ReplyDeleteIf the equivalent had happened in the other direction, there would already have been a million post/comment/email blitzkrieg on the denial-o-sphere emanating not only from we-know-which blog, but the Heartland Institute and various politicians offices.
By from this direction, it's only Eli and Deltoid making any post at all. Odd, I find it.
Odd indeed it is, Anthony Watts hoisted by his own petard, the muted response to this spectacular fall just shows how far the reality based community has lost interest in the circle jerk world of denialism.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time though the reality based community can be influenced by denialist chicanery when it chooses to, as seen in the Australian people suddenly cooling on action against climate change, 60% are against a Carbon tax, when they realised they had to pay something, no doubt denialist memes distributed by mass media subtly comfort this decision.
Denialist 'logic' doesn't exist to inform in a logical manner, it exists to inform inaction, thus is unbound by the usual demands of reality based science, so no matter how many 'surfacestation reports' are released Watts and co will continue on, a depressing prospect, but really, should this be such a surprise when billions of the species believe in invisible creatures? how can such beliefs be compatible with the critical thinking required to realise the clear and present danger of a warming planet? maybe in a hundred years Medieval superstitions may have disipated suficently to allow a critical mass of rational thinking.
jcrabb,
ReplyDeleteWhat is that, a reverse Birdy (notorious local theist troll)? Please. Human beings are not completely or even mostly rational, never have been, never will be. It's something we are sometimes able to work around, which is how scientific research works, but it's not something we can fundamentally change.
Anyway, religion is not the most illustrative form of irrationality on this topic, IMO. The financial arena seems a lot more on target. Look at how many people in the West think they're just *fine* as long as their income covers the minimum monthly payment on their credit cards. You're going to get these people to accept a financial hit for something as long term as climate change? Even if a small hit now can save their grandkids from a return to a Dickensian scarcity economy, or worse? That's three generations away! Good luck.