tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4645775149297406719..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-23504835605730849352007-06-19T02:58:00.000-04:002007-06-19T02:58:00.000-04:00Jeff Harvey certainly knows a lot about cabbages a...Jeff Harvey certainly knows a lot about cabbages and insects. He doesn't have a clue "why the sea is boiling hot"<BR/><BR/>Jeff Harvey is not a geophysicist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66948872962757582742007-06-17T09:16:00.000-04:002007-06-17T09:16:00.000-04:00Poor, poor Hans. Or should I call you "Albert"?Jef...Poor, poor Hans. <BR/><BR/>Or should I call you "Albert"?<BR/><BR/>Jeff Harvey is a scientist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677888371092808858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26547626756081284782007-06-16T14:42:00.000-04:002007-06-16T14:42:00.000-04:007:14 Anonymous:"LaLaLa I can't hear you."Look at t...7:14 Anonymous:<BR/>"LaLaLa I can't hear you."<BR/>Look at this graph then: GISS vs. local professional experts and then shut up.<BR/><BR/>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Debiltcomparison.gif<BR/><BR/>RTFRAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52373926775231972992007-06-15T10:14:00.000-04:002007-06-15T10:14:00.000-04:00So, where are your published papers on climate sci...So, where are your published papers on climate science, Hans?<BR/><BR/>Einstein published <I>his</I> papers, you know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6037668625297842552007-06-14T12:38:00.000-04:002007-06-14T12:38:00.000-04:00"if X% of your data sources have an upwards bias d..."if X% of your data sources have an upwards bias due to site issues, then you have a real problem."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps. Perhaps not. That depends on what X is. It also depends on whether another X% have a downward bias of a similar magnitude that cancels out those with the upward bias (ie, if the bias is randomly distributed).<BR/><BR/>You claim that there is an upward bias problem at a couple stations. Assuming for the moment that this claim is correct, are we really supposed to conclude from this that a similar upward bias applies at a significant fraction of all stations?<BR/><BR/>There seems to be more than a little presumption involved here.<BR/>Where is your proof? <BR/><BR/>Without proof, that conclusion is as unfounded as concluding a significant fraction of stations have supposed barbecue grill problems based on photographs of just a few stations. (How do we even know that the BBQ grill in question was even being used next to that temperature station, by the way?)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Incidentally, I am not at all impressed with the experiments that Watts is doing with the latex vs whitewash coatings. Talk about amateurish. He seems to have no clue what he is doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31997951271539119462007-06-14T10:29:00.000-04:002007-06-14T10:29:00.000-04:00BTW, you still have not answered my question about...BTW, you still have not answered my question about published papers.<BR/><BR/>It seems that you are avoiding it.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are right and NASA is wrong, but if it is really all as obvious as you say that NASA scientists have no idea what they are doing, you should have no problem getting your results published.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps there is just a conspiracy to keep those who disagree from getting published.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71225073132878719612007-06-14T10:21:00.000-04:002007-06-14T10:21:00.000-04:00Unfounded criticism?What a hoot.Who is calling NAS...Unfounded criticism?<BR/><BR/>What a hoot.<BR/><BR/>Who is calling NASA GISS scientists amateurs?<BR/><BR/>You might at least provide some <I>links</I> to the NASA corrections, Hans.<BR/><BR/>You may have a lot of time on your hands, but some of us don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47961284489113956742007-06-14T08:46:00.000-04:002007-06-14T08:46:00.000-04:00one anonymous said:Also, without accessing and pro...one anonymous said:<BR/><I>Also, without accessing and processing the data myself, I have no idea whether what you showed as corrections for GISS and others are even correct.</I><BR/><BR/>Well I suggest you do your homework first before ventilating your unfounded criticism.<BR/><BR/>GISS adjusts a <B>documented</B> station step inhomogeneity with a ramp.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46687974559114687072007-06-14T08:35:00.000-04:002007-06-14T08:35:00.000-04:00Peer review really meant a lot many years ago, but...<I>Peer review really meant a lot many years ago, but anymore it's a rubber stamp by the guy down the hall, rather than a challenge from an unknown expert across the globe.</I> <BR/><BR/>With all due respect: huh? Are you claiming to know the identities of the reviewers of recent papers in climatology and their relationships to the authors? And that there have been changes in the last, oh, 30 years? And that climatology is any different from other sciences, such as radiation biology (a field in which I have some familiarity)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47975102429962211212007-06-14T01:08:00.000-04:002007-06-14T01:08:00.000-04:00You are quick to criticize those at NASA -- callin...<I>You are quick to criticize those at NASA -- calling them amateurs -- but at least they publish in the peer-reviewed journals. </I><BR/><BR/>You are aware that the maths are seldom, if ever, checked in a peer review? You are also aware that seldcom, if ever, the source code is reviewed? <BR/><BR/>Peer review really meant a lot many years ago, but anymore it's a rubber stamp by the guy down the hall, rather than a challenge from an unknown expert across the globe.<BR/><BR/>As for the quality of the data being discussed in this thread. The root problem is that we are trying to detect a shift in mean where the shift is about 1/10 the magnitude of our measurement resolution. Normally, that can indeed be accomplished IF you have lots of data to grind on because the biases will all cancel out. However, if X% of your data sources have an upwards bias due to site issues, then you have a real problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3431241783847305992007-06-13T21:52:00.000-04:002007-06-13T21:52:00.000-04:00hans, Those graphs that you linked to mean nothing...hans, <BR/><BR/>Those graphs that you linked to mean nothing in and of themselves. The correction by itself is meaningless.<BR/><BR/>One really has to see the full history of the station and the actual temperature data along with the correction -- as well as data for nearby stations -- to make a decision about whose correction is closest to reality. <BR/><BR/>Also, without accessing and processing the data myself, I have no idea whether what you showed as corrections for GISS and others are even correct.<BR/><BR/>That is the whole purpose of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, so that people who know about this stuff can act as a reality check or "quality control", if you will.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Which gets to the question I asked above above about published papers -- which you did not answer.<BR/><BR/>You are quick to criticize those at NASA -- calling them amateurs -- but at least they publish in the peer-reviewed journals. <BR/><BR/>It's easy to make unsubtsantiated claims about the work of others, but much harder to put your money where your mouth is. At least they have the guts to put their stuff out there for criticism. <BR/><BR/>--HAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-33278702589339438032007-06-13T20:42:00.000-04:002007-06-13T20:42:00.000-04:00I don't think the home made graphs of Hans have an...I don't think the home made graphs of Hans have anything to do with 'experts'.<BR/>If you compare the adjusted GISS data for De Bilt with the homogenised KNMI series, although there are differences, they both show a warming trend of about 0,1 °C per decennium for the last century . And they both show a increased warming over the last decennia.<BR/>If GISS showed a warming, and the adjusted De Bilt showed no warming or a cooling, yes, there would be a problem.<BR/>But the trend over the last century is about the same, and the trend over the last decennia is almost exactly the same.<BR/>You can argue about the details, but you can't argue about the trends. Yes, De Bilt is warming, and this warming is increasing the last decennia. No doubt about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69965472272871550272007-06-13T18:42:00.000-04:002007-06-13T18:42:00.000-04:00Ross McKitrick's at it again:http://www.canada.com...Ross McKitrick's at it again:<BR/><BR/>http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=d84e4100-44e4-4b96-940a-c7861a7e19ad<BR/><BR/>What baloney, eh?<BR/><BR/>-Stephen BergAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-41091948796993836462007-06-13T16:24:00.000-04:002007-06-13T16:24:00.000-04:00Anonymous:You don't have to be a composer to judge...Anonymous:<BR/>You don't have to be a composer to judge if the music is out of tune.<BR/>The "experts" of GISS don't read the literature.<BR/><BR/>R. Sneyers, 1990, On the statistical analysis of series of observations, Technical note World Meteorological Organization no. 143, Geneva, World Meteorological Organization, 192 pp ISBN 92-63-10415-8 <BR/><BR/>A van Engelen and Nellestijn, JW, 1996, Monthly, seasonal and annual means of air temperature in tenths of centigrades in De Bilt, Netherlands, 1706-1995. KNMI report from the Climatological Services Branch <BR/><BR/>Compare the local experts with the amateurs at GISS<BR/><BR/>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/debilthomogenisations.gif<BR/><BR/>http://home.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/ucclehomogenisations.gifAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-83058821802319191692007-06-13T11:03:00.000-04:002007-06-13T11:03:00.000-04:00Perhaps the climate scientists should just "stand ...Perhaps the climate scientists should just "stand back" and let the real expert --Hans, who obviously has perfect knowledge and no need for statistics -- decide which stations to keep and which to jettison. <BR/><BR/>After all, he's "a geophysicist who has been QC-ing crappy data for 20 years".<BR/><BR/>Wow! I am just so impressed. :-)<BR/><BR/>I'm curious, how many papers on climate science have you published Hans? In what journals?<BR/><BR/>--HAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75543440083913847982007-06-13T09:10:00.000-04:002007-06-13T09:10:00.000-04:00Hans:Can you say more about the GISS method as you...Hans:<BR/>Can you say more about the GISS method as you understand it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69407748818951710292007-06-13T03:48:00.000-04:002007-06-13T03:48:00.000-04:00THe statis method only works fine for big numbers....THe statis method only works fine for big numbers. The problem is that for pre-1950 data the number of available stations rapidly dimishes, so an iterative triangulation method is the best method left. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, the GISS method of adjusting step inhomogeneities with a ramp, thereby adding a warming trend to rural sites, is fundamentaly wrong in <B>all</B> cases.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8373647553634417992007-06-12T14:14:00.000-04:002007-06-12T14:14:00.000-04:00The USHCN was a selection of the best stations out...The USHCN was a selection of the best stations out of the Co-op network. Karl is doing something a bit different. He is setting up a number of stations to act as a calibration for the USHCN stations. These will be used to validate the data from the USHCN stations.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43731459294776636882007-06-12T12:43:00.000-04:002007-06-12T12:43:00.000-04:00Isn't there already an effort by Tom Karl to ident...Isn't there already an effort by Tom Karl to identify a relatively small sample of high quality weather stations rather than relying on statistical techniques to isolate trends in a much larger number of weather stations where the quality of the data records is questionable? Clearly all other things being equal, larger samples are better - but all other things aren't always equal and that is why you try to carefully define your population.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12343035725707645942007-06-12T12:23:00.000-04:002007-06-12T12:23:00.000-04:00"At a certain point greater N exacerbates the prob..."At a certain point greater N exacerbates the problem as more and more extraneous and indeterminate variables enter the equation."<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I had not realized that there was a point beyond which statistics no longer applied.<BR/><BR/>I was under the impression that there were valid statistical reasons for keeping a relatively large number of samples to deal with the possibility of random variables. <BR/><BR/>--HAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-29073195500578595362007-06-12T11:41:00.000-04:002007-06-12T11:41:00.000-04:00deech56With all due respect it is somewhat more co...deech56<BR/>With all due respect it is somewhat more complex than you surmise.<BR/>The situation is a bit like trying to analyze data from a multi-year clinical trial across multiple locations where there is evidence that the protocol has not been consistently followed in all locations and for all patients within a location. At a certain point greater N exacerbates the problem as more and more extraneous and indeterminate variables enter the equation.<BR/><BR/>Also remember many skeptics are asking for the protocol and complete patient by patient data to replicate the claims that have been made. These are not outrageous requests given the claims - but are apparently treated as such.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35873151257314309012007-06-12T09:03:00.000-04:002007-06-12T09:03:00.000-04:00Dano, you are absolutely right about being able to...Dano, you are absolutely right about being able to control conditions in a lab, but individual variability is still a problem (as I notice when performing pharmacokinetic studies). Each living creature is complex (even inbred strains of mice show individual variability) and when it comes to patient data even more variability is encountered. <BR/><BR/>My points are that 1) variability is not unique to climate science, and 2) science can progress even in the face of variability, and IMHO climate science is unfairly held up to a higher standard by those who don't like the data. How to overcome variability? One way, as you mentioned, is having a high number of observations. Another is having an internal control, such as measuring changes in a given parameter.<BR/><BR/>But isn't the attempt to cast doubt on the ground data in the face of the independent confirmation via satellites and observation (uh...frozen stuff is melting) a little odd? Anyway, sorry for going a bit OT. It is a product of my OCD and short attention span. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19635896903437140862007-06-12T08:26:00.000-04:002007-06-12T08:26:00.000-04:00On the ground, however, the conditions cannot be c...On the ground, however, the conditions cannot be controlled as in a lab. The station is in the open. Old temp measurements were indeed made with lower quality instruments and by people who may have been grumpy on a given day (but the sheer number of obs cancels that out, but I used to complain about the reliability of our dew points). <BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13562153222933479252007-06-12T08:25:00.000-04:002007-06-12T08:25:00.000-04:00So with higher quality, we are getting less variat...So with higher quality, we are getting less variation - I assume the means would show a continuity rather than a sudden jump. <BR/><BR/>As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the number crunching reveals temperature anomalies, so each station would serve as its own control (kind of like patients, who receive some kind of baseline evaluation/data collection before study start).<BR/><BR/>I hope this isn't going too far afield, but I am more involved in medical research - talk about variability and complexity! Yet, a lot of information is gathered and seemingly accepted (with the possible exception of epidemiology studies involving tobacco and war dead) by those who apply a most critical eye to climate data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40986228231964206662007-06-11T22:51:00.000-04:002007-06-11T22:51:00.000-04:00I would go further than Deech, and say that a cons...I would go further than Deech, and say that a consistent treatment of station data is the best way to go. <BR/><BR/>A futher point which appears to be missing, is that although the number of stations has decreased in the last 20 years, more stations are automated. This provides higher quality data from those stations.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com