I think the best way to put a stop to this nonsense it to declare it as such instead of trying to find the flaws in his methodology and improve on them. It’s not the methodology that’s flawed – it’s the whole concept of thinking that you can transform crap data into good data. But if we continue down this line, it just lends credibility to Hansen and others like him. People end up arguing over whose recipe of turning lead into gold is the correct one, in spite of the fact that none of them actually work and indeed none of them can work.

This station had it’s temperature record adjusted. Fair enough. When further adjustments are done on nearby stations, is this station’s history included or excluded? And if it’s included, is the raw data used or the adjusted?

In other words, the adjustment is a biasing of the data, and is this biased data used to further bias other data?

These adjustments are just hand-waving. While “batman” may look odd, and may be the result of a chnage in instrumentationl, or site, or something else, there is no way to objectively change the record in a way that verifiably makes it more accurate.

EVEN IF you had detailed station history documenting exactly what change might have been made during the 30s, there would be no way to assign an adjustment that was anything more than a guess.

REPLY: If anything it makes it cooler, due to the heavy amount of particulates in the air blocking sunlight. There were several days when the temp was forecasted to hit 100 and it was uppers 80’s or low 90’s due to smoke cover.

But let;s be clear on one point. The real lesson learned by the surfacestations.org project will not be in how badly the surface temperaure is affected, but how lousy the quality of climate science really is. You would think at least one of these guys would have visited some of these stations. You know that if they did they would have gotten a clue really fast.

That said, the real big tamalle is going to be Anthony’s initial project, the paint. It’s a slow upward creep that even the NCDC admitted will not be caught by the hom adjustment. That and the trees, they grow slow, and the bigger they get the more the local wind is blocked / boundary layers do not mix.

Why it’s the Joker of course. He made off from the local A&W stand without paying for his root beer.

This unprecedented crime wave in the little berg of Cedarville launched the largest man-hunt in Cedarville history. Alas, the locals could not apprehend the Joker.

The sheriff had no choice but to turn on the Bat-signal, which in turn was detected by the satellite, resulting in the misclassification of Cedarville as an urban setting.

Now the Joker has been quoted as saying, “This town deserves a better class of criminal… and I’m gonna give it to them.”

Perhaps the adjuster of GISS data is the better class of criminal?

Orleans an appropriate adjuster? Certainly it is rural, and the station history indicates it has not moved. However, when I look at the plot of the Orleans data, I see something happened around 1929, and my guess is that it was not sudden global cooling.

From the station history documents, I think this station installed a CRS in 1931 and there seem to be changes of observers about then too.

Certainly the surrounding urban stations are of such pristine fidelity that they can be used to remove the urban noise from Cedarville.

As this is followed by examination of rural stations, should this read “surrounding rural stations”?

Reply: Thanks – fixed.

I am not sure the stations are thrown out as they are included in the v2.inv file STEP 2 uses. I’d be interested in seeing where in the code (any step) those stations are discarded. If they are thrown out I can try to redo the analysis without them to see if the Cedarville – Rurals difference is closer to the GISS adjustment.

It’s actually a waste of time Bobby… if you stick your head in the sand. But if you take information picked up here and at such places as Climate Audit, Climate Clinic, and others, you will be more informed and if hopefully, pass the info onto others in your family and family of friends.

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

One last point. GISS throws some of the northern calfornia data before doing its adjustment. See hansen et al 2001.

The strong cooling that exists in the unlit station data in the northern California region is not found in either
the periurban or urban stations either with or without any of the adjustments. Ocean temperature data for the same
period, illustrated below, has strong warming along the entire West Coast of the United States. This suggests the
possibility of a flaw in the unlit station data for that small region. After examination of all of the stations in this
region, five of the USHCN station records were altered in the GISS analysis because of inhomogeneities with
neighboring stations (data prior to 1927 for Lake Spaulding, data prior to 1929 for Orleans, data prior to 1911 for
Electra Ph, data prior of 1906 for Willows 6W, and all data for Crater Lake NPS HQ were omitted), so these
apparent data flaws would not be transmitted to adjusted periurban and urban stations.

One comment I would make is that GISS adjusts cedarville because it is nightlights = dim. Simply, based on a photograph take from space in 1995, they determined that the area was not rural during its entire history.

Everyone needs to understand the magnitude of that STUPIDITY. So because Cedarville has lights at night in 1995, we can determine that in ,say 1910, its temperature record was UHI infected and needs adjusting. It’s lunacy.

REPLY: I’m reminded of the objection of one snarky Rabett when I first started the surfacestations project when bunny boy said in essence: “pictures don’t matter because they represent only a single point in time”.

Yet Hansen uses a single satellite picture from 1995 to determine the adjustment for the whole record, for the whole USA.

Screwy wabbet, where’s the outrage?

Stupidity indeed Mosh. – Anthony

This is where Software Assurance is supposed to enter the picture. Code for which the Software Assurance process has been fully followed can generally be trusted to perform in accordance with its specification.

Based on the preliminary results of my first round of FOIA requests, it appears to me that the process has not been followed.

Sadly, software which has not been through a Software Assurance process can generally be trusted to NOT perform in accordance with its specification.