In the meantime, a thread on the TOB adjustment has been started over at CA:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2106

BTW, Bloom’s complaining on Rebetts Blog that he is “banned” from this blog, which isn’t the case at all. Banned implies permanence with no options for redemption. Bloom is simply on hold.

In Bloom’s case he has an option. All he has to do is answer the question posed to him (before his quid pro quo diversion tactic)about why there is predominantly positive bias in post measurement adjustments to the USHCN data. Onc ehe does that he’ll go off “hold”.

Mr. Bloom, what say you?

Or is an unjustified, unaccounted for bias that turned up because NOAA was too busy mixing apples and oranges?

And it DOES start at or near zero in 1900 and rise to 0.65 at the present.

As to that Heraclanian leap in TOBS adjustment since 1980 . . .

Well, that accounts for half the difference between NOAA adjusted (adjusted up .65F, shows increace of .7C) and NASA raw data (shows insignificant decrease of Ah. The graph the Rev linked to is in F, not C. So there’s 0.65F upward adjustment.

And it DOES start at or near zero in 1900 and rise to 0.65 at the present.

As to that Heraclanian leap in TOBS adjustment since 1980 . . .

Well, that accounts for half the difference between NOAA adjusted (adjusted up .65F, shows increace of .7C) and NASA raw data (shows insignificant decrease of < 0.1C).

One wonders how to account for the other half.

Your posted comments have shown whatever corrections you envision. You’ve been given ample opportunity to show your concerns.

The majority of the post is from CO2Science, and attributed. The others are from AGU. The papers themselves I cannot change. Are suggesting that I rewrite their articles to suit your views?

And I’ll point out that you didn’t mentioned “correcting the post” until the 2nd to last comment you posted. All your previous ones were of the “the paper didn’t get much attention” flavor. You switched from “paper got little attention” to “correction” late in the game, yet you say I’m the one with the credibility problem.

See here is the thing, clearly from your posts here and elsewhere, you’ve always held the work that I and others have done in this area in contempt. So I’m not in the least concerned that your opinion of me has “changed” when its simply more business as usual.

Yes the MSU/SONDE data changed, but the paper and article’s take on USHCN adjustments is still valid becuase it is being seen in other investigations today.

I have two sources of info that say there’s an issue with USHCN adjustments. The Balling paper and NOAA’s chart. We’ve also seen recent evidence that GISS adjustments caused errors, and now subsequent unannounced adjustments have changed the data again after its last “correction”. So that makes three. Then we have one thing you note saying because the MSU and Sonde data was corrected, that invalidates the Balling paper.

Ok to humor you, lets just say that’s true. Pfft! Balling/Idso paper is gone. Now we have the NOAA chart and the recent GISS discoveries, plus some of the points made by other commenters.

Ok, 2 out of 3 remain, same question: Why is positive bias imparted in USHCN adjustments?

Your answer to my question of “why” was “quid pro quo” rather than address the issue head on. You’ve used the old two step shuffle for the disengenuous, i.e. answer a challenge by putting up another.

I had already planned to do a look at TOBS and other adjustments in the future. The only difference is that you won’t be commenting on them because until you honestly answer my question on USHCN adjustments and bias posited prior to your diversion, you won’t have posting priviledges.

Ever since Pielke closed shop you’ve been camped out here, squatters rights are not a guarantee of permanent residence. You’ll have to do better than quid pro quo.

Tell you what, though: You do a post explaining wht you think the TOBS adjustment is problematic and I’ll promise to do a serious response.

Steve Bloom still hasn’t answered that most basic question, and I suspect he’ll sidestep it just as he did in the post above.

Let’s here it Bloom, why must adjustments add a positive bias to the surface record?

(And in any case doesn’t the MoE kind of stack up after so many adjustments?)

Adjustments are the issue, and it is becoming clear that TOB introduces a bias of its own, so do others.

From John Langs post on CA:

You can see how the different versions relate to one another in this chart.

- FINAL reduces 0.1F from FILNET

That more positive bias than negative, and the chart is from NCDC, so you can’t label it anything but what it is.

So let’s hear your explanation as to why so much positive bias has to be added to the dataset. I’ll give you a freebie, we know why MMTS bias exists, but given the results of my study, the number looks low.

But I’m not going to fall into the endless argument trap like you loved to set on Pielke’s blog, which is part of why the poor guy wore out and decided to give up.

But let’s also not forget the other lessons here: CO2Science isn’t very good about keeping these references up to date, and Google Scholar is an excellent tool for checking up on them.

Minimizing opposing views and papers to AGW is a common theme for Bloom and many other like him. For example, many opposing views are never posted on the blog RealClimate.org

This paper was using data believed valid at the time, the data was modified through discovery later, much like Hansens recent revise to fix his GISS error, which lessened the impact of this paper, but did not negate the value of the analysis.

Steve McIntyre is demonstrating on http://www.ClimateAudit.org that adjustments may add bias to the temperature record.

The paper’s conclusions are based on its findings that the UAH MSU and SONDE datasets show more cooling than the three that are actually used:

“We certainly realize that the conterminous United States represents only 1.54 percent of the Earth’s surface area, and analyses of that areal unit may have limited interpretations for any global temperature record. Nonetheless, we show clearly that adjustments made to the USHCN produce highly significant warming trends at various temporal scales. We find that the trends in the unadjusted temperature records are not different from the trends of the independent satellite-based lower-tropospheric temperature record or from the trend of the balloon-based near-surface measurements. Given that no substantial time of observation bias would be contained in either the satellite-based or balloon-based measurements, and given that the time of observation bias is the dominant adjustment in the USHCN database, our results strongly suggest that the present set of adjustments spuriously increase the long-term trend.”

The problem is that problems were suspected with both of those datasets in 2002, and subsequently those suspicions were confirmed (follow the links to the prior extended discussions; see also here). So in this case the lack of citations was a result of the paper being deemed of little value as soon as it saw print.

Here is a link to Karl’s paper:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1986)025%3C0145%3AAMTETT%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Some facts.

1 Karl Studied 79 stations across the US.
2. Karl validated his model by comparing it to 28 stations.
3. The model is an ESTIMATE with a substantial error.

That error is multidimensional based on

1. Latitude
2. Longitude.
3. Season.
4. Cloudiness
5. Day of the month

There is a simple question here. In Representing the temperature of the US NOAA and NASA use 1221 stations.

Those stations have had their data “corrected”

The correction models use 28 stations to validate themselves.

So, 28 stations is enough to validate a “model”, the TOBS model, which makes adjustments up to 2C.