Comments on: The Climatic Blog War of 2007

By: Kip Watson

Kip Watson — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:25:03 +0000

Sorry, pardon my slow thought processes…

Obviously, the sites are correlated with each other, not an independent data source.

So, presuming they are correlated to each other, how does that eliminate bad data? Since no two sites will be an exact match, couldn’t a lot of bad data slip through, as long as they were within a threshhold – ie. not complete outliers.

Conversely, if in many areas, a sufficient number of sites or clusters of sites are contaminated (a strong possiblility I would assume), couldn’t that lead to good sites being omitted, as they wouldn’t correlate with their neighbours?

(By the way, I just read through the whole comments section of that RealClimate post, as I have done several times before. Those guys really do themselves a disservice with their haughty attitude and many obfuscations.)

By: Kip Watson

Kip Watson — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:03:21 +0000

I’m an intense skeptic, but I’m not a ‘denier’. I would genuinely like to know whether the warming trend claimed is true.

So I’m interested in the reference in ‘USHCN methods’ to testing sites to data from ‘correlated sites’ — does anyone know: ‘highly correlated’ to what…?

By: David Walton

David Walton — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:00:04 +0000

I encourage Joel McDade to continue to defend and champion surface temperature measuring installations that do not conform to established standards. His efforts will speak for themselves.

By: Joel McDade

Joel McDade — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:39:11 +0000

I bristle at their denigration of the “volunteers,” as if Larry, Joe and Curly are out there mucking it all up. And pissing off the private COOP station observers to boot.

Here’s a bet: greater than 80 percent of the surfacestation.org volunteers have a background in science or engineering and understand perfectly well the issues involved. (I will win because I recognize many thru their intelligent postings elsewhere.)

Maybe a poll would be in order.

By: David Walton

David Walton — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:59:33 +0000

In the 70′s and 80′s I worked on several high energy physics projects as an electronic/computer systems technician in charge of data acquisition and diagnostic systems. Everything from the detectors, through the data path, to the recording instruments were checked for error and accuracy on a regular basis.

Now, imagine a physicist arguing that this equipment need not be checked and conform to certain standards.

He would not have only been be laughed at, he would have been fired.

It seems to that more than a few climate “scientists” ought to be terminated.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 17:32:40 +0000

I have absolutely no idea whay a scientist would not want to periodically check the instruments which he is obtaining data from for accuracy (calibrate). As a physician, this seems that it would be necessary before making conclusions about the Data. Gary

By: James

James — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:28:43 +0000

Have a read of the USHCN methods and you'll see the point of attack is "The difference series are calculated between each target station series and a number (up to 40) of highly correlated series from nearby stations." as this is where the trend from a warm station will be discounted. If all (or many) of the correlated stations have poor siting causing a warming trend, well, there you go.

By: jeff

jeff — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 03:04:20 +0000

Well-said, Jim.

Unfortinately I doubt anything will change. Too many egos are involved, and apparently they are afraid to admit there might be a problem with the data they rely upon so much.

By: Tina

Tina — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 02:59:45 +0000

Those who claim that the accuracy of the data is not relevant are, in effect, defending a theory against reality, which is faith, not science. **
I know that supporters of the AGW theory get very upset when they are accused of behaving in a religious fashion, instead of behaving like scientists. To avoid this, I suggest they start behaving like scientists and support the effort to obtain the best data possible.

Isn’t it amazing how simple statements cancut through the BS…it’s soothing to the ears and the mind!

Good for you for simply following your passion.It doesn’t surprise me a bit that you captured the attention of others…you weren’t looking to do that. Good going!