Meto Update: Scientist Acquires Raw Station Data

[Methuselah]

Oops....http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-crock-week-whats-anthony-watts-take-2

Thanks, mate!

So, what will our own resident Mulder and Scully discover, I wonder? That this miniscule portion of the world has 'systematically' defective weather stations? I doubt it very much. But, I await the 'new improved' data with due trepidation!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Here is the graph - contrary to what the attack video says, it's not the 70 best compared with the rest. Read the explanation.

As referenced in the text of the NCDC Talking Points Memo, the Figure1 graph compares two homogenized data sets, and demonstrates an uncanny correlation. Here is what they say:

Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring.

Seems reasonable, until you understand what “homgenization” really is.

What’s “homogenization” you say? Some kind of dairy product treatment?

Well no, not quite. It is data that has been put through a series of processes that render it so the end result is like comparing the temperature between several bowls of water that have been mixed together, then poured back into the original bowls and the temperature measured of each. What you get is an end temperature for each bowl that is a mixture of the other nearby bowl temperatures.

In other words, the video is a dishonest ad hominem and does not reflect what the surfacestations data actually shows.

[osmposm]

Here is the graph - contrary to what the attack video says, it's not the 70 best compared with the rest. Read the explanation.

In other words, the video is a dishonest ad hominem and does not reflect what the surfacestations data actually shows.

OK, AFT, forgetting the attack video, and concentrating on the chart....if we accept the hypothesis that the graph data's 'homogenization' is effectively fudging, can we look forward soon to the publication of the sceptics' version of the same graph, prepared in the manner they would prefer?

Let's see it - the 'true' version of 60 years of the temp record at the 70 'good' stations versus the 1228 (1218?1221??) in the complete dataset.

Edited July 31, 2009 by osmposm

[BUSHY]

Yup there will be a response and it will not be well received.

[Methuselah]

OK, AFT, forgetting the attack video, and concentrating on the chart....if we accept the hypothesis that the graph data's 'homogenization' is effectively fudging, can we look forward soon to the publication of the sceptics' version of the same graph, prepared in the manner they would prefer?

Let's see it - the 'true' version of 60 years of the temp record at the 70 'good' stations versus the 1228 (1218?1221??) in the complete dataset.

Oz.

Like you, I eagerly await the 'official' skeptic version of the graph. But, barring the usual 'anything to bash the MetO' routine, I'm not expecting anything too sensational...

You never know, though - who knows what the 'people's statisticains' will be able to invent?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

OK, AFT, forgetting the attack video, and concentrating on the chart....if we accept the hypothesis that the graph data's 'homogenization' is effectively fudging, can we look forward soon to the publication of the sceptics' version of the same graph, prepared in the manner they would prefer?

Let's see it - the 'true' version of 60 years of the temp record at the 70 'good' stations versus the 1228 (1218?1221??) in the complete dataset.

Absolutely. I can't wait for it.

Common sense would suggest that well-placed sites will have a different temperature record trend to the badly placed sites.

Do I think it will "disprove" global warming - no, the intention is not to re-write climate history but to discover it. My guess is the main difference will be the good sites will show less warming over the last 30 years than the bad ones.

[La Bise]

How can we be sure that climate change denier guerrilla units have not been hanging around recording stations, particularly those 70 chose ones, with a bag of ice and a fan...?

After all, right now the last line of argumentation they have which has not been shot to pieces by anyone seriously involved in climatology is that the data has been tampered with, so we co-conspirators in the great global warming swindle could be forgiven to throw similar accusations at them. It would probably be more fun than insisting with the boring factual stuff.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

There are some bewildering comments in this thread.

Regardless of where data or analysis comes from it should be rigorously challenged from all sectors; there's too many people who simply accept what they are told as fact. It's what makes a healthy scientific community and imo anyone who thinks otherwise is missing the point.

I completely agree with you

I think it is better to not have answers to things, and be honest about that in order further research, rather than speak in absolutes and take things as read. More concilliatory behaviour would help build better trust from sceptics amongst us. But as long as there are people around to keep doubting and looking at alternatives then there is always hope. It builds even further mistrust and scepticism when anyone who asks questions or has doubts and suspicions is dismissed as a conspiratorialist or a 'denier'.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Lots of twitching warmist bums going on :o Oh and the official Redhill temp staion was closed 2 years ago because....ready for this...it was showing too cool temps.

BFTP

Edited August 2, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Methuselah]

I completely agree with you

I think it is better to not have answers to things, and be honest about that in order further research, rather than speak in absolutes and take things as read. More concilliatory behaviour would help build better trust from sceptics amongst us. But as long as there are people around to keep doubting and looking at alternatives then there is always hope. It builds even further mistrust and scepticism when anyone who asks questions or has doubts and suspicions is dismissed as a conspiratorialist or a 'denier'.

Who's doing that then, Tamara? Having read back through the thread, I can see no evidence for such a claim; just people who ask questions and have doubts and suspicions. That's the beauty of genuine scepticism: it cuts both ways! :o

Why shouldn't the claims of 'sceptics' be subject to exactly the same degree of scrutiny as those of others? Are 'sceptics' a protected species?

[Chris Knight]

Who's doing that then, Tamara? Having read back through the thread, I can see no evidence for such a claim; just people who ask questions and have doubts and suspicions. That's the beauty of genuine scepticism: it cuts both ways! :o

Why shouldn't the claims of 'sceptics' be subject to exactly the same degree of scrutiny as those of others? Are 'sceptics' a protected species?

You missed this one, Pete, immediately above Tamara's

How can we be sure that climate change denier guerrilla units have not been hanging around recording stations, particularly those 70 chose ones, with a bag of ice and a fan...?

After all, right now the last line of argumentation they have which has not been shot to pieces by anyone seriously involved in climatology is that the data has been tampered with, so we co-conspirators in the great global warming swindle could be forgiven to throw similar accusations at them. It would probably be more fun than insisting with the boring factual stuff.

[Methuselah]

You missed this one, Pete, immediately above Tamara's

No, I didn't 'miss it', Chris. I merely lumped it together with all those 'The wheels are falling off the AGW bandwaggon' posts: mildly funny and more than a tad sarcastic, yes; but, surely not 'nasty'?

You can always use the [report] button, mate. It's there for everyone.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

How can we be sure that climate change denier guerrilla units have not been hanging around recording stations, particularly those 70 chose ones, with a bag of ice and a fan...?

Because we would be 'recording' rapid cooling rather than stagnation/ever so gradual cooling?

It would probably be more fun than insisting with the boring factual stuff.

Yes the fact that AGW is only theory and not proven is boring isn't it.

BFTP

[Chris Knight]

No, I didn't 'miss it', Chris. I merely lumped it together with all those 'The wheels are falling off the AGW bandwaggon' posts: mildly funny and more than a tad sarcastic, yes; but, surely not 'nasty'? :lol:

You can always use the [report] button, mate. It's there for everyone. :lol:

Sorry, my mistake Pete, I was reading this thread on its own, not in conjunction with the other thread in the General discussion area where "nasty" was mentioned. The joys of being a moderator, eh, Pete? I would not want to do it.

I assumed NSSC was replying after the entry by La Bise.

I took no offence, and there certainly was nothing here to [report]

Edited August 2, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Methuselah]

Sorry, my mistake Pete, I was reading this thread on its own, not in conjunction with the other thread in the General discussion area where "nasty" was mentioned.

I assumed NSSC was replying to La Bise.

I took no offence, and there certainly was nothing here to [report]

No need to apologize, Chris. I thought that AFT was replying to Os?? :lol:

Maybe, we should all start our replies with in reply to ------? :lol:

Just an idea, mate???

[Chris Knight]

No need to apologize, Chris. I thought that AFT was replying to Os?? :lol:

Maybe, we should all start our replies with in reply to ------? :lol:

Just an idea, mate???

Thought I did, Pete - quoting your reply to Tamara's post

[Methuselah]

Thought I did, Pete - quoting your reply to Tamara's post :lol:

I think you did, too...Too-much vodka on my part?

B****r! My emoticons aren't working!

[Chris Knight]

I think you did, too...Too-much vodka on my part?

B****r! My emoticons aren't working!

Dunno. Is there any prior case in which too much vodka caused emoticons to stop working? Too much G&T once stopped my keyboard working! The moral: Don't ever blame the alcohol until after it has been drunk - don't think, drink it first.

Edit: Damn, my emoticons have stopped working - Rum, in my case.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Chris Knight

[osmposm]

Lots of twitching warmist bums going on Oh and the official Redhill temp staion was closed 2 years ago because....ready for this...it was showing too cool temps.

BFTP

Redhill, at the foot of the North Downs, is a notorious frost hollow. As a result, when an official station it regularly recorded temp minima that were dramatically lower than other sites in the region/area.

In 2006 it was replaced by Charlwood, about 6 miles away, which was and is believed to be more representative. Could it just be....ready for this...that Redhill was closed not because the conspiracy demanded the removal of a station recording inconveniently low temp data, but because the Met Office is constantly trying to improve the quality and meaningfulness of its data?

Sorry if that gets your, um, coolist bum twitching as an idea. (Not my usual turn of phrase, but hey, let's both stir it a bit....as you say, much more fun than being boring and factual, eh? :lol: )

[Chris Knight]

Redhill, at the foot of the North Downs, is a notorious frost hollow. As a result, when an official station it regularly recorded temp minima that were dramatically lower than other sites in the region/area.

In 2006 it was replaced by Charlwood, about 6 miles away, which was and is believed to be more representative. Could it just be....ready for this...that Redhill was closed not because the conspiracy demanded the removal of a station recording inconveniently low temp data, but because the Met Office is constantly trying to improve the quality and meaningfulness of its data?

Sorry if that gets your, um, coolist bum twitching as an idea. (Not my usual turn of phrase, but hey, let's both stir it a bit....as you say, much more fun than being boring and factual, eh? )

Which is fine and dandy as a representative weather station, no dispute - but when historical "weather" records for this part of Surrey are used for "climate" studies - it just creates a upwards kick in the record - which needs to be adjusted - so do past records get adjusted down, or up, and by how much, or do more recent measurements get adjusted, and by what criteria? Finally, who is to tell if the adjustments made are reliable in relation with the longterm record?

And this is for a single station - there are thousands of stations worldwide, which have been replaced for just this mode of reasoning - for weather reasons! Yet the data still gets woven into the climatological record.

There seems to be some dispute in another thread in this climate change area where weather station siting is being discussed. I wish some people could broaden their minds on occasion!! There is overlap, and the two fields of interest do not seem to sit well together.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Chris Knight

[Methuselah]

My own, preconceived, belief is that history is littered with sites having been excluded for one reason or other; but it won't affect climate trends?

But, believing's not the same as knowing.

[osmposm]

Which is fine and dandy as a representative weather station, no dispute - but when historical "weather" records for this part of Surrey are used for "climate" studies - it just creates a upwards kick in the record - which needs to be adjusted - so do past records get adjusted down, or up, and by how much, or do more recent measurements get adjusted, and by what criteria? Finally, who is to tell if the adjustments made are reliable in relation with the longterm record?

And this is for a single station - there are thousands of stations worldwide, which have been replaced for just this mode of reasoning - for weather reasons! Yet the data still gets woven into the climatological record.

There seems to be some dispute in another thread in this climate change area where weather station siting is being discussed. I wish some people could broaden their minds on occasion!! There is overlap, and the two fields of interest do not seem to sit well together.

I don't know the answer, Chris, and I take your point. The point of the change was, as you imply, presumably not to do with long-term climate record assessment, but with shorter-term weather recording needs.

Inasmuch as Redhill's records would have been part of the worldwide assessment of temps, then I assume - but then by many people's standards I am ridiculously trusting - that the meteorologists involved would, like most scientists I have met most of the time, have tried hard to do any necessary adjusting in as honest and accurate a manner as they could.

But perhaps they didn't need to. I don't begin to understand how these things are collated, but it may be that there is usually no attempt made to re-create (invent?) a continuity between stations that have gone and ones that have replaced them. Perhaps the records just continue to stand as they are for the periods they operated, and only stations that have continuity are used for longer-term comparisions.

Now there must clearly be an exception to this in cases where a standard group of stations - the CET record being the most obvious example - are used to make up a specific index. Certainly there is some dispute about the replacements and/or adjustments used for the CET, hence Hadley vs Manley. But the difference between the two seems to be pretty minor, really, for most purposes, and certainly doesn't affect our assessment of temp changes in England over the last 100 (or 300) years. Bear in mind, too, that I'd guess a common reason a station is abandoned is because it has become too urbanized - if it is then 'replaced' (if that happens) by a more rural station, then that would presumably create a downwards kick in the record which needs to be adjusted.

So to that specific question, "who is to tell if the adjustments made are reliable in relation with the longterm record?"....impossible, I'd have thought to answer for certain. But I would (in my innocence) suggest that it's more likely to be the people who studied, and trained, have devoted their lives to, and are paid by us specifically to work on such matters (and do), than it is to be us. If that's not a good enough answer then we're a bit stuck - it would seem to lead inevitably to the abandonment of all temperature-change study, possibly all contentious scientific research, since there are always going to some concerns you can raise about any data about anything. The judicial term, 'beyond reasonable doubt' comes to mind - but my idea of 'reasonable' is clearly not shared by everyone.

Re the dispute on the other thread, my reaction was a bit, um, unreasonable, I accept.....but I was deeply annoyed by what I presumed was the real reason for the thread - a reason that had been categorically denied. Others can judge more objectively than me if they think I was quite wrong in presuming that.

Edited August 3, 2009 by osmposm

[La Bise]

It's easy to get cross when the majority of the comments you read across the media from the sceptical camp infer dishonesty, lies and offuscucation on the part of the global scientific community, particularly climatologists as a way to contradict a theory which is quite hard to disprove with actual science. Sure, the odd hole is found on occasion and highlighted, but on a whole it is a solid piece of work. Yet, each time, such small flaws are used as basis to dismantle the whole work on the subject, a kind of extrapolation gone mad. I choose to trust the findings of our best climatologists, I can't see why they would party to that kind of deception or being that stupid not to constantly review their work to take into account new data and new evolutions of the theory. Without wishing to be rude about anybody in particular, it's not as if some unknown meteo nerd on here or any other amateur forum is going to come up with a sudden revelation of any value.

Let's not get into the whole "It's a way to raise taxes and the Green industry is a con to make money"...our model of society in the western liberal worls is utterly dependant on rampant consumerism, growth is the main driver and and the work of governements is to keep that ticking away nicely, to ensure tax revenue and prevent unrest in society(so they can stay in power and enjoy the perks of governance...). The measures being discussed to combat AGW are very much a brake to that prevalent notion of growth, it goes against everything that the orthodox model of capitalist society is about, in short it will likely bring unrest and diminish growth yet governements are willing to take steps in that direction. So much for the green movement being a licence to print money...

One thing I've no problems agreeing with the sceptics is the media hysteria (which blows both ways btw, try to be a bit honest about that) which leads to alarmist non-sense that can indeed cast doubts and leave people confused.

[Solar Cycles]

It's easy to get cross when the majority of the comments you read across the media from the sceptical camp infer dishonesty, lies and offuscucation on the part of the global scientific community, particularly climatologists as a way to contradict a theory which is quite hard to disprove with actual science. Sure, the odd hole is found on occasion and highlighted, but on a whole it is a solid piece of work. Yet, each time, such small flaws are used as basis to dismantle the whole work on the subject, a kind of extrapolation gone mad. I choose to trust the findings of our best climatologists, I can't see why they would party to that kind of deception or being that stupid not to constantly review their work to take into account new data and new evolutions of the theory. Without wishing to be rude about anybody in particular, it's not as if some unknown meteo nerd on here or any other amateur forum is going to come up with a sudden revelation of any value.

Let's not get into the whole "It's a way to raise taxes and the Green industry is a con to make money"...our model of society in the western liberal worls is utterly dependant on rampant consumerism, growth is the main driver and and the work of governements is to keep that ticking away nicely, to ensure tax revenue and prevent unrest in society(so they can stay in power and enjoy the perks of governance...). The measures being discussed to combat AGW are very much a brake to that prevalent notion of growth, it goes against everything that the orthodox model of capitalist society is about, in short it will likely bring unrest and diminish growth yet governements are willing to take steps in that direction. So much for the green movement being a licence to print money...

One thing I've no problems agreeing with the sceptics is the media hysteria (which blows both ways btw, try to be a bit honest about that) which leads to alarmist non-sense that can indeed cast doubts and leave people confused.

And which odd hole would that be? I can think of plenty, but please feel free to discuss them! Obviously not worded the above right! I mean what holes have you found!! Edited August 3, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[La Bise]

It was just a general comment, I don't particularly concern myself with looking for flaws in the AGW theory. I do accept every theoretical model has imperfections, which is why it is revised by peer-reviewed studies undertaken by the cream of the crop in climatology regularly. The onus is not on them to constantly having to justify their conclusions but rather for the doubters to come up with some serious counter-theory and data to back it up. So far, it has not happend. IF a serious flaw was to be found, one that would put in jeopardy the whole edifice, it would go counter to every accepted notion of scientific rigour to brush it away hence why the notion of "conspiracy" needs to be introduced when dealing with AGW deniers. It presupposes that people whose working lives have been dedicated to study climate are basically liers and/or incompetents. Which is also why the likes of the MetOffice do get quite twitchy when their data is misused by people whose aim does not come under any kind of scrutiny.

I do also have no reason to believe that this same community has elaborated some kind of hoax for reasons unknown and that the rulers of the most powerful nations on the planet, in cahoot with them, have any kind of desire to endanger the political status-quo that has underpinned the growth and prosperity of the western world and their own (you could in fact argue that the recent step-up towards reducing emissions has been forced upon them by their geo-political analysts who highlighted the catastrophic effects on the develloping world and subsequent unrest AGW would cause, no less than the Pentagon drafted such a report that was, obviously, binned away by the Bush administration).

This is simply applied logic, based on probality, there isn't even a need to start digging out charts and datasets.

I roughly divide AGW deniers in two camps, the far more prevalent one is the absolute layman in term of meteorology and climatology, who generally will not "believe" in it because the weather forecasters failed to predict, say, a weatherfront that spoiled their week-end once and can not fathom in any way the science behind it all which compound him/her in their "belief" that it is all non-sense. Add to that political opinions ("It's all the effing pinkos sandal wearers who want to stop me driving my car") and the usal cynicism when politicians push something hard ("There must be something in it for them, probably got their snout in a big bag of Green money"). The other group is amateur meteorologists, who do understand the basic of climate patterns, do often have a nerdy knowledge of datasets and do have a dislike/distrust of official institutions because, a few times, they proved the boffins at the Met wrong when THEIR forecast was better than the Met's. Enthusiastic amateurs are very hard to convince, they generally feel like they've been dealt a bad hand in life and they should be doing the job rather than the guy who's paid to do it. Enthusiastica amateur do also have a strong ego, generally, they invest a lot of time and, sometimes, money to pursue their passion, seeing someone being paid fail is bound to frustrate...

Some of the discussions here are the same I had many times in the pub after a football game, when playing too much Football Manager and attending way too many games turn most fans into a far better manager than the guy paid to run the team. The reality is that the guy running the team is a better manager than you'll ever be (even when he is really crap...) and that the researchers at the MetOffice are better than you, know their job very well and are accountable, unlike you. No one runs a tab on all the times you posted non-sense, got a forecast wrong, your opinions and conclusions are of little relevance to anyone but you and a few accointances.

Now, if someone here really think they have found data that counter the current finding or spotted something that would invalidate the model, , do ask yourselves this: is there really a chance that the hundreds of climatologists currently working on it could not spot it, despite their funding, access to resources and years if not decades of experience in the field, is it really likely that I or some other amateur could have done it? Is it likely that that lone scientist has really found a valid alternative theory or is just yet another "magic bullet theory" (it's all down to sunspots man).

If someone comes up with strong data to prove that AGW is wrong, it will be peer-reviewed, it will be studied and, if confirmed, I suspect it will be of great relief to many people that it's not us driving climate change. To think otherwise is, I'm afraid, indulging in conspiracy theories...