Mosher Busted By Gavin Schmidt, Zeke Hausfather And Nick Stokes

Mosher is afraid to come over here, and is posting more nonsense on WUWT.

Dirty bird carcasses tell the story of how air pollution has improved in the last 100 years | Watts Up With That?

Mosher’s stupidity and dishonesty is impressive.

4. I spent way too much time with his old code, could not find a single line supporting any of the graphs

His inability to analyze and run code which thousands of other people have used is very telling, but quite believable for the crew of incompetents at Berkeley Earth.

Plus, he is using a TINY subset of data to cherry pick his results. There are 19000 Stations in the US he ignores and 42000 stations in the rest of the world he ignores

The USHCN data set (which NOAA has been using for decades) is about 1200 stations which were chosen because of the quality of the stations. I didn’t choose them, NOAA did. Gavin says you only need half that many.

Gavin Schmidt: Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly anomalies over the United States, for example, you’d just need a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record

There is no reason to use more US stations. The quality of the USHCN stations is infinitely superior to the garbage set of global stations which Berkeley Earth uses. Mosher’s argument is idiotic, at best.  And as Nick Stokes and Zeke have explained, there is very good reason not to use all of the US stations. It is called “changing station composition.

The number of US GHCN stations has changed dramatically over time.

Stations are being added at more southerly locations.

The quality of reporting at the new stations has been declining.

Even if you use all of the US GHCN stations, you get basically the same pattern. The frequency of hot days is declining.

A better experiment would be to use all US GHCN stations which have been continuously active over the past century. This eliminates the problem of changing station composition, and produces results almost identical to the USHCN data set. Maximum temperatures are declining, as is the frequency of hot days.

The addition of a large number of US GHCN stations in the 1950’s (mostly at lower latitudes) introduced about 0.3F warming bias.

 

There is very good reason not to use all of the US GHCN stations. Mosher has no clue what he is talking about, and is directly contradicting Zeke and Nick about changing station composition.

No matter how many times Mosher and his friends lie about it, there is no correlation between CO2 and hot weather.

And I’m not ignoring the complete set of global stations. Quite the opposite. I’m documenting that they don’t exist. Without daily temperature data, GHCN station data is illegitimate.  There is no such thing as a monthly thermometer.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Mosher Busted By Gavin Schmidt, Zeke Hausfather And Nick Stokes

  1. richard verney says:

    Good work.

    I have left a couple of comments at WUWT in response to Mr Mosher’s comments.

    It was probably about 5 years ago that Mr Mosher said that all you need is 50 well spatially sited stations in order to ascertain global temperature data.

    You have recently worked with a subset of USHCN consisting of the same 747 stations that have extant records these past 100 years. That is a good basis for a like for like comparison, and the spatial coverage of 747 stations over the contiguous US, is far better than just 50 stations across the globe 9as Mr Mosher suggested was all that was required).

    Tony, you are hitting them where it hurts, and now that you have posted your code on line, they have no easy get outs. That is why they will not come here and debate this issue with you.

    • RAH says:

      Not a one has shown plots using Tony’s code. Not a one has claimed to have found an error or bug in that code. I have noticed very little interest in supporting Tony’s contentions of the climate record among the regular “deniers” at WUWT. There seems to be a mentality there among even many of the regular “deniers” that seeks to minimize Tony’s contributions.

      • tonyheller says:

        Some skeptics enjoy the battle and see me as a threat, because I want to end it.

        • kyle_fouro says:

          I think people also assumed that the lukewarmers would come out on top.

        • RAH says:

          The way I see it even if somehow skeptics won what I will call the war out right, weather and climate will remain a topic of interest for many if not most of those that post at climate change blogs. The war brought my interest into the subject, but now that I’m into it, that interest would not die off if the war ended because there would still be many battles over a whole range of weather and climate topics that would carry on.

        • Perhaps they want to prolong it. This is the reason I never support single-issue panhandling lobbies but instead vote libertarian. Lobbyists “against” a hobgoblin need that hobgoblin with which to separate money from fools. By voting for a pro-energy party that respects individual rights I transmit a signal no looter politician can misunderstand. Tony should offer to sell Reason magazine an article explaining some of what is explained here.

        • RW says:

          Indeed. Think about all the careers made and based on a junk composite time series. Nearly everyone too lazy to the tedious and laborious work of checking the arithmetic. How many other data sets have been warped to fit the bogus one? How badly is any correlation mangled by turning cyclical variation into a linear trend? The damage a junk composite time series would already have done to climate science is unimaginable.

      • richard verney says:

        It appears reasonably clear that AGW is all in the adjustments.

        With unadjusted RAW data, if we could properly measure the globe (or at any rate the Northern hemisphere), I strongly suspect that within margins of error, we would find the Northern Hemisphere no warmer than it was in the late 1930s/early1940s.

        So the question really is: how correct and legitimate are the endless adjustments that have been made to the RAW data?

        I consider that we need to present evidence in such a way that there is no need for any adjustments whatsoever. This entails like for like station measurements which are compared not with some constructed hemisphere temperature, but rather a comparison with its own station record.

        I consider that the best sited stations should be retrofitted with the same type of equipment used in the 1930s/1940s, ie., same type of enclosure, painted with the same type of paint, using the same type of LIG thermometer, which is calibrated with the same method used in the 1930s/1940s, and we should then observe using the same TOB as used at each of the best sited stations. We could then get modern day observational; RAW data that can be directly compared with historic RAW data with no need for any adjustments whatsoever.

        I consider that Tony’s latest sub set of 747 stations to be the most pertinent. There is no reason to suspect that the contiguous US is some outlier, there is nothing unique about its geography or topography, it spans a wide latitude (and longitude) and has many different Climatic zones.

        Unless someone can validly explain why the contiguous US should be some outlier and not typical of the NH as a whole, I consider that the results of an analysis of US temp records is very enlightening.

        Tony, keep up the very good work.

  2. kyle_fouro says:

    He also says that NOAA and non NOAA data “give the same answer.”

  3. Andy DC says:

    Tony’s data sets appear rock solid and irrefutable. Since there is no way they can refute Tony’s data and message in a scientific manner, they are only left with lies and crude attempts to defame

    • This is precisely the tack intellectuals of the looter persuasion have adopted with the ideas Ayn Rand set forth in Atlas Shrugged. Many criticize her, but none deny her teachings. None argue your should choose your values and actions by superstition, or that nobody has a right to live for his own sake, but must instead be predator or victim; nor do they assert that politicians and their minions have the right to initiate deadly force to take property and impose ideas. Instead they resort to vilification of the person. Misdepicting Tony is a counterfeit tu quoque one should expect from looters.

  4. The Other Brad says:

    If I recall, he is the one that laments when people don’t share code. What does he say? “Show your work?”

    Well, Tony has and Mosh can’t stand it and doesn’t understand it.

    Highly educated dolt, if you ask me.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      I don’t really care if people’s original academic education and credentials are in fields unrelated to a subject at hand but Mosher’s writing and cryptic drive-by comments betray a very disordered mind. That’s quite unusual for a sales and marketing guy. He even seems confused at times whether he’s got the Ph.D. in English claimed on his resume. The other insufferable dolts I’ve met in the past mostly knew how to be consistent in their puffery.

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html

      • Poptech says:

        No, Mosher never finished his liberal arts Ph.D. in English. Which is why you cannot find any thesis from him. I will add that to the article and make it clear.

        Mr. Mosher is not remotely “highly educated” and certainly not in any scientific field.

  5. Dave Burton says:

    Tony, I don’t completely agree with your statement that, “…to use all US GHCN stations which have been continuously active over the past century… eliminates the problem of changing station composition…”

    It’s a good idea, and it does solve the problem of stations “moving around.” But it doesn’t solve another sort of “changing station composition” problem: the problem of changing surroundings at individual station locations. Most commonly/obviously, stations which were initially well-sited in rural locations may become suburban or urban stations as cities grow, causing a warming bias. OTOH, stations which were in open fields may become shaded as trees grow up around them, causing a cooling bias. Either way, a spurious trend may be recorded.

  6. sunsettommy says:

    It appears that Steve Mosher is going to run away…….., again. It is the BEST he can do apparently.

    He is all mouth and no substance.

  7. Mark Fife says:

    I personally think the way to handle data from a set of continuously changing stations is what I have done in the graph at the link below. I am only plotting results from stations active during the entire period being graphed.

    This graph shows there is no CO2 driven signature in the data. It also shows a number of other things to the observant eye, I think.

    One note. I am plotting the average of annual averages, so I did cull out any annual average not based upon a full year of data (i.e. 12 months). I also culled out a great deal of duplicate data.

    https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4EKHA7OnQQk/WXPeGgqfuGI/AAAAAAAAATo/6WFYGHQsteAwsb0mkAFvOlvINbjBjgVYgCEwYBhgL/s1600/1.PNG

  8. A C Osborn says:

    Tony, Mr Mosher was in argument on WUWT about adjustments to data and bragging about how good BEST is, in response to a question about Antarctic Readings he said this

    Steven Mosher | July 2, 2014 at 11:59 am |

    “However, after adjustments done by BEST Amundsen shows a rising trend of 0.1C/decade.

    Amundsen is a smoking gun as far as I’m concerned. Follow the satellite data and eschew the non-satellite instrument record before 1979.”

    BEST does no ADJUSTMENT to the data.

    All the data is used to create an ESTIMATE, a PREDICTION

    “At the end of the analysis process,
    % the “adjusted” data is created as an estimate of what the weather at
    % this location might have looked like after removing apparent biases.
    % This “adjusted” data will generally to be free from quality control
    % issues and be regionally homogeneous. Some users may find this
    % “adjusted” data that attempts to remove apparent biases more
    % suitable for their needs, while other users may prefer to work
    % with raw values.”

    With Amundsen if your interest is looking at the exact conditions recorded, USE THE RAW DATA.
    If your interest is creating the best PREDICTION for that site given ALL the data and the given model of climate, then use “adjusted” data.

    See the scare quotes?

    The approach is fundamentally different that adjusting series and then calculating an average of adjusted series.

    in stead we use all raw data. And then we we build a model to predict
    the temperature.

    At the local level this PREDICTION will deviate from the local raw values.
    it has to.

    Which really says it all.

  9. Earl Wood says:

    I think there might be a typo in your description of figures 8 and 9 (or in the figures themselves). You say,

    “The addition of a large number of US GHCN stations in the 1950’s (mostly at lower latitudes) introduced about 0.3F warming bias.”

    And your figure number 9 does show that all USGHCN stations minus those stations that are continuously active yields a increase in temperature (positive on the graph). But Figure 8 shows that continuously active stations are warmer since 1950s than the full set of USGHCN. Or am I missing somthing?

    Anyway, keep up the good work.

  10. John S says:

    less weather stations also makes it easier to manipulate the data by ‘recalibrating’ them or otherwise alter the way the collect the data. Easier to ‘tweak’ 100 stations than 1000, or 10000. front entrance conspiracy instead of (or in addition to) back door..

  11. A C Osborn says:

    There are also 2 Graphs put out by Zeke when discussing Tony’s use of Absolutes, rather than Anomalies at this WUWT Post
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/26/on-denying-hockey-sticks-ushcn-data-and-all-that-part-2/

    The 1st graph shows GHCN RAW Absolutes
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/plugins/BanNasties/imageDiversion.php?uri=/musings/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Averaged-Absolutes.png

    The second graph is US only USHCN RAW Absolutes
    https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/goddard-and-ncdc-methods-1895-2013.png

    Please look at these graphs and ask yourself, do they bare any relationship with either GHCN Current Output, or the USHCN Current Output?

    • A C Osborn says:

      Note the Steps in both sets of data which as Tony has said they have smoothed out by applying adjustments to bring them in line with CO2 levels.

    • MrZ says:

      Anomalies are just an offset. You can use 13 degrees or the price of your car as the offset, does not matter anomaly stats will be the same.

  12. RW says:

    Mosher did point out in his post the possibility (reality according to him) that a station label can remain the same in the data set but actually be a different site depending on what time point in the series you are looking at. According to Mosher, some of these changes in site involve changes in elevation.

    Presumably, one of those many station meta data variables codes for stuff like this even though the name of the station remains the same.

    How often does a station site change yet retain the same station ID?

    Last thing. If you use the tool on NOAAs site to display the ‘gridded’ temps on a global map, the 30s in the U.S. definitely shows up as red hot relative to the baseline they use (which runs from the 60’s to 1990 if memory serves). But when you go back to, say, 1920, what you end up seeing is a lot of the ocean as cool blue…so I’m thinking the way they get that temp numner to go down is by adding in a sea surface temperature data set which, in 1920, can’t possibly be quality controlled all that well at all.

    Regardless of all this, a massive discrepancy between raw and adjusted temps for u.s. only data leaves a ton to be explained. No doubt.

  13. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    Check out the graph “Number Of Valid Days/Month Vs. Year 1919-2016 At All US GHCN Stations.” I don’t know how much of a difference in the stats it could make to have a drop from 30 valid days/month to 29 valid days/month, but it’s interesting that this drop in reporting quality coincides with the start of the dramatic warming we’ve supposedly been going through.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *