tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post7440159884778462799..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The hedgehog and the hyenaEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43794203648361028522010-01-28T17:18:36.844-05:002010-01-28T17:18:36.844-05:00By 'read the paper', you mean read a WUWT ...By 'read the paper', you mean read a WUWT blog post?<br /><br />With regards to sampling: Menne et al discusses whether they have enough 'good' stations and 'poor' stations to compute meaningful spatial averages. By their analysis, they do, and disputing that would require more than just handwaving. Keep in mind that there exist way more stations than are actually needed to compute a US mean anomaly.<br /><br />With regards to possible bias, due to urban sites being surveyed by the volunteers first: I did think about that when I read Menne. It would of course be better if there were more 'good' sites included, but as above, Menne finds that they had enough of them. When Watts finally publishes his entire set (and/or if the NWS continues their own survey), we'll see if Menne et al were correct. <br /><br />If anything, I'd expect that adding more good stations would support Menne's analysis, so I'm surprised Watts used that point. We'll see, sooner or later.<br /><br />'Plus homogenisation problem'<br /><br />Right. That has meaning. Watts blabbered about this a bit in his reply, but didn't say anything relevant to Menne et al; Menne anticipated Watt's complaint about homogenisation. Watts says he's holding back until he finally publishes. We'll see what he ultimately has to say, but I'm not holding my breath.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-4023925574425206842010-01-28T16:54:01.626-05:002010-01-28T16:54:01.626-05:00MarkeyMouse says: Read the paper carrot fancier. L...MarkeyMouse says: Read the paper carrot fancier. Low Hanging Fruit. The best remote longstanding rural stations are the last remaining to be collected, and they comprise less than 10% of the total, so they nearly all have to be collected to be a representative number versus the total. Plus homogenisation problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49437788167209090422010-01-28T16:18:49.658-05:002010-01-28T16:18:49.658-05:00Blather blather blather.
Where is the distortion,...Blather blather blather.<br /><br />Where is the distortion, anonymous? What's wrong with the analysis?carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62218459275165497312010-01-28T15:28:37.311-05:002010-01-28T15:28:37.311-05:00Incompetent data theft by Tom Karl and his gang of...Incompetent data theft by Tom Karl and his gang of fraudsters?<br /><br />"In the summer, Dr. Menne had been inviting me to co-author with him, and our team reciprocated with an offer to join us also, and we had an agreement in principle for participation, but I asked for a formal letter of invitation, and they refused, which seems very odd to me. The only thing they would provide was a receipt for my new data (at 80%) and an offer to “look into” archiving my station photographs with their existing database. They made it pretty clear that I’d have no significant role other than that of data provider. We also invited Dr. Menne to participate in our paper, but he declined.<br /><br />The appearance of the Menne et al 2010 paper was a bit of a surprise, since I had been offered collaboration by NCDC’s director in the fall. In typed letter on 9/22/09 Tom Karl wrote to me:<br /><br />“We at NOAA/NCDC seek a way forward to cooperate with you, and are interested in joint scientific inquiry. When more or better information is available, we will reanalyze and compare and contrast the results.”<br /><br />“If working together cooperatively is of interest to you, please let us know.”<br /><br />I discussed it with Dr. Pielke Sr. and the rest of the team, which took some time since not all were available due to travel and other obligations. It was decided to reply to NCDC on a collaboration offer.<br /><br />On November 10th, 2009, I sent a reply letter via Federal Express to Mr. Karl, advising him that we would like to collaborate, and offered to include NCDC in our paper.. In that letter I also reiterated my concerns about use of the preliminary surfacestation data (43% surveyed) that they had, and spelled out very specific reasons why I didn’t think the results would be representative nor useful.<br /><br />We all waited, but there was no reply from NCDC to our reply to offer of collaboration by Mr. Karl from his last letter. Not even a “thank you, but no”.<br /><br />Then we discovered that Dr. Menne’s group had submitted a paper to JGR Atmospheres using my preliminary data and it was in press. This was a shock to me since I was told it was normal procedure for the person who gathered the primary data the paper was based on to have some input in the review process by the journal." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/<br /><br />Same thing happened with JohnV. They are all desperate to cook the data before it's gathered, so they can get their distortion in first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60012780166488391182010-01-28T14:24:11.644-05:002010-01-28T14:24:11.644-05:00Whatever they can do to narrow down the list of go...Whatever they can do to narrow down the list of good stations, and then avoid doing any sort of big-picture quantitative analysis.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73031864392391373222010-01-28T14:12:37.582-05:002010-01-28T14:12:37.582-05:00Re Boris @ 8:04
'There's years more of th...Re Boris @ 8:04<br /><br />'There's years more of this stupidity left. It appears to be a renewable resource with these guys.'<br /><br />Even so, the idiots still feel the need to recycle the stupid ad-nauseam.amoebahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15783694650121687459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77660822608674318492010-01-28T11:04:20.419-05:002010-01-28T11:04:20.419-05:00I glean from comments over at WUWT that there will...I glean from comments over at WUWT that there will also be a couple other shots at Menne.<br /><br />1. Airports!<br />2. UHI<br /><br />The airports one is going to be very silly. They will say most of the good stations are at airports, then throw them out for no real reason.<br /><br />There's years more of this stupidity left. It appears to be a renewable resource with these guys.Borisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20075042120556784942010-01-28T08:26:41.532-05:002010-01-28T08:26:41.532-05:00The only places you have "formal letters"...The only places you have "formal letters" (scare quotes, because today they are more and more emails) of collaboration) are in grant proposals. These can be pretty sketchy.<br /><br />The other place where all sides have to sign is on copyright agreements signing over the rights to reproduction to the publisher. IF (and this is super sketchy) NOAA insisted on papers being available without fees and was willing to pay the publisher and Watts and Pielke wanted to retain some rights to the images/paper, that could be an issue, but as Eli said, that's about all he could think of. Come to think about it a bit more, if Watts wanted to keep the rights to the data, that could be the problem. Steve McIntyre will have to have a talk with the lad.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3457178280288145612010-01-28T07:56:30.084-05:002010-01-28T07:56:30.084-05:00I called this one:
"Plus there are really no...I called this one:<br /><br />"Plus there are really not enough good stations with enough spatial distribution at that sample size."<br /><br />Will he claim the same thing about the entire sample set? Even odds, I say.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77009803454934858562010-01-28T06:53:52.363-05:002010-01-28T06:53:52.363-05:00Boris: Good call. Menne et al even anticipated ...Boris: Good call. Menne et al even anticipated he'd say that, so they specifically addressed it. It clearly went sailing over Watts' head. I might have expected a few iterations of Watts not understanding what all they did.<br /><br />My favorite part: "yes even at 70% when I wrote my booklet “Is the US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?, which contained no temperature analysis, only a census of stations by rating."<br /><br />Keep in mind, he did no analysis for his booklet, yet was able to conclude: "The conclusion is inescapable: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since the<br />U.S. record is thought to be “the best in the world,” it follows that the global database is<br />likely similarly compromised and unreliable."<br /><br />No analysis, but an 'inescapable' conclusion, and even one that can be extrapolated. <br /><br />What a clown.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57783859167282379642010-01-28T05:48:56.698-05:002010-01-28T05:48:56.698-05:00Quoted for Nostradamus-ness:
"Tony will say ...Quoted for Nostradamus-ness:<br /><br />"Tony will say that the bad stations have been used to adjust the good stations, so everything is still bad."<br /><br />And Tony said:<br /><br />"Essentially, in my opinion, NCDC is comparing homogenized data to homogenized data, and thus there would not likely be any large difference between “good” and “bad” stations in that data. All the differences have been smoothed out by homogenization (pollution) from neighboring stations!"<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/<br /><br />Also: Colts 34, Saints 31.Borisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1004956990183217832010-01-28T03:48:19.610-05:002010-01-28T03:48:19.610-05:00The hyena has finally responded to Meene et al....The hyena has finally responded to Meene et al.'s article, and it's a tedious read. Mostly a recapitulation of Roger Sr's whining, with some slurring of Tom Karl thrown in for good measure.<br /><br />The <b>interesting</b> part of the screed is Watts's claims that both sides had nearly reached an agreement on joint authorship, but NOAA refused to send a formal letter of invitation about such and so the project foundered. <br /><br />I've never, ever heard of a formal invitation for collaboration on a research paper (this bunny used to hang out in the numerical modeling areas of meteorology). Has our humble host heard of such a thing?mphysoptnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64240789210853207192010-01-26T13:19:19.415-05:002010-01-26T13:19:19.415-05:00Wait, did he ever publish, or even blog, results? ...<i>Wait, did he ever publish, or even blog, results? I recall someone saying they'd been sent off to a lab for analysis long ago. Some news? </i><br /><br />AIUI from the last gibberishy hand-fluttering I got from him the labs were done and he found something else to do. I suspect his hypothesis wasn't falsified or there was a problem in the data/data collection.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39011844035977779482010-01-26T10:19:29.939-05:002010-01-26T10:19:29.939-05:00OK, my guesses on the Watts/Pielke response, beyon...OK, my guesses on the Watts/Pielke response, beyond random whining about nothing.<br /><br />They will do anything they can to avoid gridding it up and computing spatial averages of good and poor subsets. (I doubt Watts is capable of doing that math, anyway). They will try to say there aren't enough good stations to do any analysis comparing good vs poor, so they'll just say the whole thing is poor. They'll then make some argument that spatial means are meaningless anyway, since people don't experience the spatial mean.<br /><br />They will dig up one or two cases where they find some site discontinuity that the homogenisation procedure does not successfully remove. They will then invite the reader to extrapolate from there.<br /><br />There may be some cognitive dissonance: they will highlight site discontinuities, and then try to paint homogenisation as some sort of fraud, instead of realising that homogenisation takes care of their complaint. You don't have to be self-consistent if you take a scorched-earth approach. Happily, the US CRN has been up and running for a few years now, and the satellites are out of their reach, so they can't burn everything.<br /><br />However it goes, the WUWT crowd will carry on thinking that the only allowable adjustment is a downwards one. TOB is of course a communist plot. The ones convinced that the observed warming is nothing but UHI will be attacking the satellites as well, once they realise the satellite trends are also consistent (apparently Watts didn't figure that out until relatively recently). We're starting to see attacks on the satellites from Monckton. The rest will mumble something about PDO.<br /> <br />Just my guess.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36820025777562699452010-01-26T07:04:04.949-05:002010-01-26T07:04:04.949-05:00Does proximity to Eli cause artificial warming or ...Does proximity to Eli cause artificial warming or cooling?carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66917799676163489702010-01-25T21:22:07.171-05:002010-01-25T21:22:07.171-05:00Random hopRandom hopEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3415043662198003842010-01-23T22:19:02.186-05:002010-01-23T22:19:02.186-05:00Why don't we just all agree that we reduce the...Why don't we just all agree that we reduce the stations to just one... Random Walk; thats the way to go I think. Put the meter on Eli's, living room wall and just give him a call when we want the mean temp for the day. Probably not to expensive and his traffic is sure to go up. Win, win.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-20221689840239096442010-01-23T21:21:46.069-05:002010-01-23T21:21:46.069-05:00Thank you carrot eater you are right.
arch stanto...Thank you carrot eater you are right.<br /><br />arch stantonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35303737650135926842010-01-23T21:01:03.673-05:002010-01-23T21:01:03.673-05:00Nope, Sr. still has an NSF grant. Don't know ...Nope, Sr. still has <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/piSearch.do;jsessionid=9517D4B9695EF1E5A209BB43398C3071?SearchType=piSearch&page=1&QueryText=&PIFirstName=&PILastName=Pielke&PIInstitution=&PIState=&PIZip=&PICountry=&Search=Search#results" rel="nofollow">an NSF grant</a>. Don't know about NOAA, etc.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7714892319634275672010-01-23T20:49:55.417-05:002010-01-23T20:49:55.417-05:00Actually, no. This paper would have been 'in...Actually, no. This paper would have been 'in preparation' at the time, not 'in press'.<br /><br />I think you're looking for this one.<br /><br />ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf<br /><br />Also noteworthy from Menne et al in 2009 is a paper describing a new homogenisation method.carrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-14714627089568283282010-01-23T20:01:08.826-05:002010-01-23T20:01:08.826-05:00Ah, so this is the “in press” paper cited in the “...Ah, so this is the “in press” paper cited in the “talking points memo” used by Peter Sinclair in the Watts episode of “Climate Crock” http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/12/dcxVwEfq4bM<br />http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf<br /><br />Thank you for finding it for me.<br /><br />arch stantonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27248392160353661782010-01-23T18:20:34.578-05:002010-01-23T18:20:34.578-05:00> his cores from the bristlecones
Wait, did h...> his cores from the bristlecones <br /><br />Wait, did he ever publish, or even blog, results? I recall someone saying they'd been sent off to a lab for analysis long ago. Some news?Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85457848188067796302010-01-23T15:13:58.686-05:002010-01-23T15:13:58.686-05:00As Watts now hosts RP Sr.'s site (and in that ...As Watts now hosts RP Sr.'s site (and in that capacity presumably had a role in the deletion of all of those embarrassing comments), perhaps we should say that "Climate Science" is Watts' vanity site.Steve Bloomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37625814863530419852010-01-23T15:10:24.901-05:002010-01-23T15:10:24.901-05:00And who can blame Ababneh for lawyering up given r...And who can blame Ababneh for lawyering up given recent events?<br /><br />Former Skeptic: "Whatever happened to the nice fellow that wrote the seminal mesoscale modeling textbook?"<br /><br />Eli may be able to inform us on this point, but I have a strong suspicion that NSF defunded RP Sr.'s modeling work around five years ago. It would certainly 'splain everything that's happened since then.Steve Bloomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77608354862027419332010-01-23T14:24:55.582-05:002010-01-23T14:24:55.582-05:00Jesus, someone failed to submit their tree ring da...Jesus, someone failed to submit their tree ring data to the ITRDB. SEE HOW "THE TEAM" CONTROLS THE GRAD STUDENTS, thus perpetuating fortress academia!<br /><br />Conclusive evidence that AGW is BS conspiracy.Jim Bouldinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10062200124702011010noreply@blogger.com