Anthony Watts has put a huge amount of work into documenting significant problems with station siting and UHI.
Beyond that are the issues with the data handling and manipulation. USHCN has actually reversed the measured trend since 1920 from cooling to adjusted warming, based on the fact that a few of their co-benefactors in the global warming scam thought it was a good idea.
I come from a different background. I was on the design team of many microprocessors, including the Intel I7, Intel Itanium and IBM Power PC. These designs have billions of transistors, and every one of them has to work perfectly. These companies spend vast resources on flushing every last bug out of these designs.
How did we manage to isolate and remove every bug? The process involved analyzing the design using many different simulation and modeling techniques. A single approach would be inadequate, and would guarantee failure. They hire dozens of people whose sole purpose is to find and flush out problems with the design, using as much creativity and diversity of thought as possible. The designers benefit from the process, because they want their bugs found before the product goes to market.
NASA and NOAA do the exact opposite. They are pushing an agenda, and have developed a single methodology which achieves the results they are looking for. When someone like me comes along and analyzes the data using different approaches, how do they respond?
Everyone else does it our way
And that is exactly the problem. Everyone else is doing their data analysis the same way, using the same assumptions, so they all come up with the same results. I am digging up all sorts of problems with their data and methodology, and they would be wise to listen – if they actually are interested in producing an accurate temperature record.
Right on Steven.
Keep after them.
Many, many of us are excited that you are getting some recognition around the world[finally].
We all appreciate your determined effort.
+1
+1
Yes this is VERY important keep it up,especially the “records” and “adjustments” with dat. Will no doubt be used in the future to prosecute. Don’t LOSE them LOL.
Kudos Steve.
We should consider ourselves lucky the government paid folks are only working on climate science with the result being hijacked public policy. If they were doing medical research, there would be millions of dead people.
Just keep hammering away at the bastards . . . hard to argue with using actual data instead of cooked/boiled/broiled/invented “data”.
Sad, but true. And we have 1,000 dead vets, as a direct result of VA malfeasance, to prove it.
What Fred said! keep up the good work Steve
Not to get too far off topic but medical/nutritional research is just as bad as climastrology and we do have millions of dead people to show for it.
” . . . . if they actually are interested in producing an accurate temperature record”
Very low TRUTH probability.
“I ceased to do my own thinking… In the end I came to read conditions as he himself read them because we were both reading from the same page of the same book, held by him before my eyes… Once I accepted his facts it was a cinch that my own conclusions, derived from his facts, would agree with his own.” ~ Reminiscences of a Stock Operator
+1
“Anthony Watts has put a huge amount of work into documenting significant problems with station siting and UHI.”
Yes, he did. But my understanding is that the trend detected by the high-quality stations was essentially the same as the trend calculated using all stations adjusted by the USHCN / GISS adjustment methodology.
Hardly. You’d better look over the results again.
These three points are from Watt’s press release on his paper. Note the third point:
Trend Analysis ResultsTemperature trend estimates do indeed vary according to site classification. Assuming trends from the better-sited stations (CRN 1 and CRN 2) are most accurate:
?Minimum temperature warming trends are overestimated at poorer sites
?Maximum temperature warming trends are underestimated at poorer sites
?Mean temperature trends are similar at poorer sites due to the contrasting biases of maximum and minimum trends
Try reading the paper.
As a real-time firmware and electronics engineer working in the Pacific Northwest, I am required to create and execute scores of well controlled experiments every day to ferret out bugs in my designs. My electronics design colleagues are always quick to point out the fallacy of relying on electronic modeling programs (such as spice) for design work, but being the hard-core progressives that they are, they believe that the software models used to predict global warming are somehow infallible! Go figure.
… can one start referring to SPICE ‘runs’ as NASA GISS GCM (General Circulation Model) run Scenario A or B versus whatever SPICE emulator is actually is use? … kinda blend in gobull warming terms and ideas into everyday conversations …
I’ve been using Tina-TI (Ver 9) for a couple years now, using it as ‘first-pass check’ before going to the breadboard … that and 4NEC2 and Ansoft HFSS (on and off) for antenna stuff. The antenna stuff can be really ‘iffy’ since so much depends on the algorithms the SW authors implemented as well as the environment the antenna is used in (e.g. HF freqs where proximity to ground is not well modeled).
The point is that the Progressive rank and file are skeptical of software models when it comes to their own livelihoods (like in electronic design), but when it comes to their politics (i.e. global warming), they believe them 100% and want me to open my wallet based on the predictions. There’s something wrong with that (that is, Thinking Like a Progressive).
I worked for INTC from 2000 to 2006. I was a PM for an enabling group making workstations on the Itanium platform. If you can survive working there, my hat’s off to you.
He didn’t. That’s why he’s here “blogging for bucks” …… Please use the Donate button above : )
re: Realist June 25, 2014 at 8:59 pm
He didn’t.
From the OP: “I come from a different background. I was on the design team of many microprocessors, including the Intel I7, Intel Itanium and IBM Power PC.”
Something looks to be at odds with stated fact from the opening post.
.
According to some, not me, this is all Tribalism on this blog. It’s a curious thing when a person makes such inane comments on another blog about this one being tribal when the one that person posted on is guilty of the same shit he claims for this one.
And that person has an axe to grind with SG.
Holy Smokes. No kidding.
Nik from another blog.
Goddard was such a willfully sensationalistic fool that for over two years he promoted an adjustment hockey stick that suddenly shot upwards a full degree or two in the last year merely due to data drop off from temporary late station reporting which showed up as a spike since he failed to convert to anomalies but didn’t tell anybody what he was really doing. When I pressed him to provide before/after plots of individual stations to demonstrate this massive sudden adjustment not only himself but an entire tribal cheerleading squad shouted me down by calling me crazy and I am now completely banned from his site. He is now a great embarrassment to skepticism in general as he actively alienates the only remaining demographics of open minded people that could otherwise be converted to skepticism, namely highly liberal young scientists and rather liberal young urban professionals and tech workers. Goddard’s main commenters included a convicted son/daughter sodomist and a truly insane ancient gods theory crackpot, and the activist alarmist crowd is well *aware* of this and uses it to great advantage in quite successfully stereotyping all climate model skepticism. His regular promotion of a brain washing gun control conspiracy theory complete with Holocaust photos loses him the entire Internet culture debate for *all* of us skeptics because he has the second highest traffic skeptical site. He actually claims the CIA is using drugs to promote school shootings in order to disarm America in preparation for a liberal holocaust against conservatives, cheered on by one of the most polarizing right wing forum owners out there, his new bulldog Jim Robinson whose highly bigoted FreeRepublic forum content is exposed on a dedicated liberal Twitter account:
https://twitter.com/FreeRepublicTXT
Goddard’s blog allows Gore to continue to effectively stereotype skeptics as being wackos and skepticism as being primarily political in motivation rather than moral and technical.
The blade of Goddard’s adjustment hockey stick was just as spurious as the blade of the Marcott 2013 temperature hockey stick celebrated by Michael Mann as being vindication of his life’s work.
Singing to such a choir as Goddard has assembled only helps alienate the few remaining people skeptics can hope to soon convince. They live in cities and in college towns and they are liberals who will not listen to you if you allow skepticism to be attached so strongly to conspiratorial far right wing politics. Not shunning Steven Goddard for being a hack is the skeptical version of alarmist support for John Cook.
Jun 24, 2014 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC
Living proof that drug abuse affects brain function.
And I’m not even ‘that Jim’. Nik gets so much wrong … I’m _Jim, not JR or Jim Robinson.
If you can’t kill the message, character assassinate the messenger.
It’s almost as if – he was a spurned lover or something …
spurn (spûrn)
v. spurned, spurn·ing, spurns
v.tr.
1. To reject disdainfully or contemptuously; scorn. See Synonyms at refuse1.
2. To kick at or tread on disdainfully.
v.intr.
To reject something contemptuously.
n.
1. A contemptuous rejection.
2. Archaic A kick.
He threw the same at http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/24/watts-reasons-with-goddard.html.
And got quite a few sharp replies for his efforts. 🙂
“Goddard’s blog allows Gore to continue to effectively stereotype skeptics as being wackos..”
I doubt Nik can see the irony in this; he’s too much of a wacko.
It would help if he didn’t make it so easy
stevengoddard says:
June 25, 2014 at 7:46 pm
Living proof that drug abuse affects brain function.
Falling into the trap of not knowing the history in the previous weeks/months on this?
Or no?
I only need to see “Steve’s” vitriolic responses to those who don’t agree with him as well as the other crackpot stuff (birther – really?) he has on the blog to know he needs rehab …. now.
Oh, I see a Clairvoyant. Whatever.
Brad June 25, 2014 at 4:01 pm
According to some, not me, …
Mostly malcontents and ne’er-do-wells; got any names? We like specifics, not conjecture or wild hand waving …
.
From the moniker, First name Nik. Last name NYC.
R (as in “roger”) .. We’re expecting him to ‘short out’ or fly too close to the sun one of these days …
I would argue that their data and methodology are a direct result of their greater problem with ethics….i.e. – Gleick Syndrome.
You’re providing free a quality control audit for them and they don’t seem to appreciate it.
It isn’t the kind of audit they had in mind. Steve shows up with a trainload of rubber gloves asking for data. Perhaps we need him on Benghazi at the moment.
Steven, when are you or someone going to testify to Congress about the temp record manipulations. All we ever see is gloves-on guys agreeing the planet is warming. We all know about former ice ages, but it’s lame. The real issue is manipulation both in proving the case for no natural cycles and fraud at the same time.
for natural cycles…
Hey Psalmon!
“Steven, when are you or someone going to testify to Congress about the temp record manipulations. ”
Testifying to Congress is like testifying to Al Capone that organized crime is taking over the bootlegging business.
GISS (and the others) are only committing fraud because that is what their funding demands.
Understand the incentive and coercion dynamics, but respectfully, I think there are some real committed fanatics over there (as there are throughout this fraud) to be so audacious.
Remember, the one thing that the warmist deceivers can’t mess with are the records for high and low temperatures.
And I’ve made the point before that as far as the world records for the hottest and coldest day, if we really had just gone through a century hockey stick warming, it shouldn’t be that the record for the hottest day, worldwide, was set in 1913, and the coldest day: 1983. Really, as the supposed runaway warming took off, the record for the coldest day should have been left back in the dust, set near the beginning of the 20th century. And the hottest day, that should have been set just very recently and most likely in the last decade, in “the hottest decade on record.” It’s azz backwards: the coldest 1983, the hottest 1913.
Well, it gets worse, much worse, for the warmist deceivers. Yesterday I was thinking of all the other records for the hottest and coldest days (countries, states, continents), thinking that I bet these other records will likely confirm that we really haven’t been warming, and indeed we’ve been… gasp … cooling. My comment on another thread:
Steven has found evidence of wholesale data manipulation. And you have trolls tying to quibble with details of Steven’s work, but the one thing that the data manipulators can’t manipulate flat out contradicts all of their manipulations. Steven is on to something.
That’s amazing when you think of all the CAGW bullcarp that’s happened, and those highs and low temperature records sit there showing up the lies of the alarmist rhetoric.
It’s turned into a game of Three Card Monte.
“Three Card Monte Street Hustle – Card Tricks Revealed”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2kO_5cNF5k
+1
You give some chimps a toy and they’ll use it to explain everything.
Steven,
These guys are all using the same assumptions? From my basic understanding of statistical analysis this alone raises a huge red flag.
That probably means you don’t understand stats and the underlying assumptions associated with them.
Message to Realist,
With a Ph.D. in Statistical Analysis, I might have a good understanding of “stats and the underlying assumptions associated with them.” I have spent dozens of hours examining the algorithms used to adjust temperatures. My conclusion: what is presented as the surface temperature record is suspect as best. There is no reason to expect that trends in the current “official” temperature record are reliable. The methodology is fraught with arbitrary decisions and heroic assumptions — even if the tendency to confirmation bias was not present. At the same time, there is no statistical guarantee that Mr. Goddard’s approach produces the best record possible. These observations may leave us in a quandary; however, there are two thoughts that can help us understand which one is more reliable. First, examine the physical phenomena that accompany various years. From the associated physical phenomena, Mr. Goddard’s approach seems to be more reliable. Second, while satellite-measured temperatures have their own problems, those problems are not nearly as severe as those encountered with surface-measured temperatures. Again, satellite-measured temperatures — although shorter — supports Mr. Goddard’s approach as more reliable.
The main thing is, if we are so menaced by ‘warm’ the scientists and government should have many, many more temperature data stations…ONLY in the open countryside and at multiple elevations.
I showed recently how many of the top reporting stations are nearly all at either sea level or the lowest level in many sites. This gives false readings due mainly to proximity to bodies of water including oceans.
On top of this, the ‘heat island’ effect has been infinitely worse since 1900 when there was no asphalt at all and much less cement and a far smaller population with smaller cities.
Getting data that isn’t off due to these human-generated heat islands is highly important and lo and behold, the main thrust has been to eliminate, not expand, rural temperature stations!
Hi Steve,
I was at the other end of that process (I was on the design team of many microprocessors) working for a customer in test and reliability. Despite all the efforts of designers such as yourself bugs and features got through the net. Some were pretty obscure it has to said. As with everthing in life some manufacturers were more receptive than others. Some denied ouright that there was a problem until supplied with chapter and verse.
One of the most interesting was the alpha particle problem from ceramics used on DRAMs which failed randomly in the field.
One thing though it was one of the most enjoyable jobs I had, unfortunately the component manufacturers got really good at getting reliable product on the market, and failures became less common.
If you are interested in alternative approaches then I suggest reading my latest blog post:
My best estimate: less than 1C warming if CO2 level is doubled..
This is a short summary (2600 words) of what I am reasonably certain will be the definite statement of climate. This is not based on models, but instead on my assessment that we cannot possibly predict the climate any time soon.
The trouble with “correcting” the temperature record is that you must then decide what you’re going to correct for and how you’re going to correct it. This leaves ample room for personal biases — even unconscious ones — to come play havoc.
I’d like to see Anthony’s response regarding the incongruence between his station siting efforts and his apparent approval of using fabricated (calculated, estimated.. it’s all semantics) data; it’s still mind boggling.
If you believe that “fabricated” means the same thing as calculated or estimated, you need to get some help with the language.
That’s the new phrase we all need to use everywhere… politicians too ..
“adjusted warming”…
Steven,
Hang in there my brother. Wow. What a bunch of drama queens and weirdos. You know who you are!
Chill out everybody. This is a blog. Steven has done some wonderful work. His critics need to tighten up their delivery. Personally attacking Steven by comparing him to Mann (who may actually suffer from a personality disorder – sociopath), is really out of bounds. Just take it easy! If this whole thing was a corporation, IMHO, Steven is a technical guy. Leave him alone and let him work. Don’t like his work? Criticize that. Don’t like his politics? Criticize his politics. Too many are pretending they know him better than they do; possibly resulting in strawman attacks. Strive for objectivity; it’s tough I know, but try.
I realize a lot of you out in blog land have a vested interest, a dog in the hunt so to speak. You have spent a lot of time working on the land temperature record peeling back the layers of deceit, and clearing out the fog of government ineptitude and self-serving mendacity; only to come to this: mercilessly attacking a guy just presenting data – if he isn’t presenting it right – attack that. But assaulting everyone on the blog as being some sort of kook is way wrong.
I come here day in day out because there is a lot to learn here. This is a great blog. The climate history; the data analysis – take it for what it is worth. But it is just a blog. And is very lightly moderated – I have agreed with every banning. They just weren’t contributing. Zeke is very welcome here. Is Mosh banned? Anthony? Anybody with substance?
I just don’t understand the dog-pile on Steven. Way wrong.
“They just weren’t contributing.” To what? The never ending story?
Trol (doesn’t even rate being labeled a full “troll”)
Tro. Rhymes with “Bro”.