A number of prominent skeptics are now on record saying “they have to adjust the raw temperature data.”
The logic behind that being – the raw data has some margin of error in it, therefore we have to accept the systematic repeated data tampering by a few climate activists on the government dole.
This is the oddest bell shaped curve I have ever seen.
Suppose the doctor says “you may have a condition, I am going to attach leeches to your genitals to fix it.” Are you obligated to accept that solution?
If they are going to tamper with the data, they should adjust it down to compensate for UHI. Not adjust it up. The fact that some sources of possible error have been identified, tells you absolutely nothing about the validity of the data tampering implementation. Climate scientists have no training in signal processing, and no business attempting it.
UHI is real and accounts for almost all surface warming
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/03/global-urban-heat-island-effect-study-an-update/
Climategate allowed us to detect the worldwide corruption of science that started at the end of WWII to save frightened leaders and the world from possible nuclear annihilation.
World leaders have obviously worked together behind-the-scenes for the last seventy years, from the time the UN was formed in 1945 until 2015,
directing tax public funds to scientists willing to manipulate, hide or adjust data and observations that would:
1. Undercut UN’s Agenda 21:
http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.htm
2. Reveal the Higher Power that makes and sustains every atom, life and world in the solar system:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
Consensus scientists are like Pavlov’s dogs, trying to protect world leaders [1] from reality [2].
1. UN’s Agenda 21:
http://habitat.igc.org/agenda21/index.htm
2. The Higher Power that makes and sustains every atom, life and world in the solar system:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
Do not ask for whom the bell drools, it drools for thee.
UHI would only be real for the alarmists if it were to bolster their cause. It doesn’t so it has to be ignored. Not real science, but it does help the cause.
The silence re SG and Homewood here is very telling. What you are both doing is having a devastating effect me thinks LOL
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/14/week-in-review-43/#more-17783
I agree!
World leaders thought they could hide reality from the public.
They can’t. But they can hasten their demise by continuing to lie.
I remember on WUWT when Mosher replied to a thread about problematical temperature readings, and said, ‘ You’ve got to fix the data.’
Why anyone would hire him as a mouthpiece, is beyond me..
He’s so darn incompetent !
To baffle us? Do you think he tortures the data as much as he tortures his syntax?
If we start seeing +20°C temperatures in the Antarctic, I’d say yes.
NASA Ice Free Arctic 2013 is Back Again LOL with a new Pseudo prediction http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/14/us/nasa-study-western-megadrought/index.html
Sceptics DO need to accept the need for temperature adjustments, otherwise the genuine problems found with GHCN/GISS will get lost in the noise of battle.
You can only argue against an adjustment if several sets of nearby data are more consistent with the unadjusted. Just showing an isolated adjustment and moaning about it is like flying an airship over Syria, it will probably get shot down.
So you think the entire USHCN data set of 86,136,242 readings is an isolated adjustment?
https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/screenhunter_7077-feb-12-00-22.gif?w=640
I post graphs of US and global, and you respond with something about an isolated station.
Blackadder has a very funny skit about a Medieval doctor. They discuss how all things are cured ‘By a course of leeches’ for everything.
NO! Only the original observer can correct the data!!!! The correct method is to show the original dat with error bars.
On Thermometer resolution, and ERROR
http://pugshoes.blogspot.se/2010/10/metrology.html
An analysis can be made WITH DOCUMENTED reasons for changes and with the ORIGINAL DATA FRONT AND CENTER.
On top of that the various reasons for changes given turn out to be dreamed up without any real information to back them up.
A couple of examples:
Zeke Hausfeather states:
Anthony of course had The Mosh Pup and Zeke all over him until he did a TOBS adjustment. What is not mentioned is the original system had two separate thermometers. One mercury for the high temperature and an alcohol thermometer for the minimum temperature.
Instructions were written and given out to the observers in 1882. There were two thermometers, one max and one min.
For the maximum thermometer they state:
“…When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….”
That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong tome of day should RAISE the maximum temperature not lower it!
Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918 mentions the Six thermometer and says the accuracy was not good so the US weather service used the two thermometers mentioned above.
He also states there are 180 to 200 ‘regular weather stations ordinarily in the larger cities, 3600 to 4000 coop stations and 300 to 500 special stations.
Meteorology: A Text-book on the Weather, the Causes of Its Changes, and Weather Forecasting By Willis Isbister Milham 1918
On page 77 —
This would indicate that as Steve says using a computer program to SMOOTH the data based on the ASSUMPTION a station move or other disruption occured is not justified. Heck we just went from a week with temperatures as high as 70F today with a high of 27F. The BEST program could ASSUME this drastic change in weather was a station change or what ever.
…….
I thought it quite interesting that Willis Isbister Milham was talking about 20 years of hourly data in 1918.
On page 68 he says a thermometer in a Stevenson screen is correct to within a half degree. It is most in error on still days, hot or cold. “In both cases the indications of the sheltered thermometers are two conservative.”
on Page 70
“The Ventilated thermometer which is the best instrument for determining the real air temperature, was invented by Assman at Berlin in 1887…will determine the real air temperature correctly to a tenth of a degree.”
OMG it’s getting worse now, one hot day and Fairfax http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/plans-to-use-mcg-as-shelter-for-melbournes-heatwave-refugees-20150215-13em74.html
…and an interesting final paragraph in that article:
“In recent years significant work has also been done by the council to offset the “heat island” effect, a phenomenon in which cities stay warmer than other places because of their heat-absorbing materials such as dark roofs and urban canyons, which trap hot air.“
I don’t know how many times I have repeated this mantra but here I go again.
The changing of data after the fact is NOT SCIENCE, IT’S FRAUD. It is NOT supportable under any circumstance.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000….
I wish these pseudo-scientists could get that through their thick skulls.
The major reason for not touching the original data is there is a very good chance the data is correct and your assumptions are wrong.
As Blade pointed out recently, data is data, anything else is analysis. ‘Raw’ data is not ‘raw’, it is simply ‘data’.
oh dear – how many stations are in urban areas-
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/Publications/gcos-34.pdf
go straight to e. population and values put on weather stations-
” urban warming is a phenomenon that the GSN would like to avoid, therefore more wight was given to rural or small towns.
The value they give to Urban stations is 0.
Even their 10,000 is not “Rural”.
Here are some nice Rural stations in Alaska.
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/susitnalanding.JPG
Susitna Landing – note proximity to building this was installed on May 21st, 2003
NCDC record says: FLAT GRAVEL AREA NEAR CONFLUENCE OF KASHWITNA AND SUSITNA RIVERS. How would a researcher know about the building proximity from this?
Here is another one:
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/MoosePass1.JPG
Moose Pass – note the concrete structure which is a fish hatchery (warmish water?)
NCDC record says: HATCHERY, OUTSIDE & 3 MI NW OF PO AT MOOSE PASS, AK
Moose Pass is an unincorporated community of just over two hundred people. At the 2010 census the population was 219.
And another Alaska station:
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/images/AK_co-op_pics/englishbay3.JPG
English Bay – note the MMTS temperature sensor within about 1 foot of the building.
English Bay, Alaska (AK) the population was 177 at the 2000 census.
Hey Gail! I tried to contact Watts about some stations in my area after I took pictures of them. I got zero response, and this was when they were asking for crowdsourcing. One station was on a black rooftop, in between air two conditioning units. The other station of note was up against a south facing limestone bluff, over an asphalt parking lot, in between two brick buildings.
But, these aren’t the stations we’re looking for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHx7o6lp_hE
Cripes.. English Bay is a total FAIL; that it looks fairly recent makes it a spectacular total FAIL.
Its almost as if a memo went out ordering the UHE corruption of many rural sites !!!
No, surely not.. !
As I said to Mosher over at Climate etc. adjustments create a false Reality instead of describing it.
All data have measurement error. Temperatures are variable. You can’t “adjust” this variability out. Climate “science” just ignores natural variability and the error introduced by their “adjustments.”
Unfortunatelly, I agree that there’s much corruption in science and, above all, science is influenced by politicians, leding to altered datas, in order to serve some obscure interests. Too bad for all of us!
No, not really.
Too bad for world leaders and puppet scientists who overlooked basic spiritual teachings, e.g.,:
Thou shall not lie.
Climate scientists have no training in signal processing, and no business attempting it.
I’ve always wondered why alarmists thought it was ok to ignore inconvenient facts because the person putting them out “isn’t a climatologist” but have absolutely no problem with a non-statistican doing a statistical analysis of climate data.
I’ll say it again: when I was in high school (long before the CAGW movement gathered momentum) we were taught that if you have contaminated data (i.e. any data that is unusable in it’s original state, and does not fit in with the rest of your data as a result) you *throw it out*.
It still makes sense today, yet a number of “skeptics” think otherwise; I wouldn’t call them “skeptics” at all.