This is a great idea, not just for vengeance’s sake, but to create a cautionary document to be cited the next time hotheads go on a crusade–and to demonstrate the fallibility and worse of Science-as-an-institution.

Figure (A1) seems to be correlation plot of smoothed values. If so, the R2 values are much to high [i.e. nonsense] as adjacent data points are not independent. This would [should!] never have passed peer-review [certainly not if I were a reviewer].

Mike Ramsey

Yes, this is not a pretty picture.

BTW, John Christy & David Douglass (citing the Randall & Herman paper) state the case for UAH MSU data being more accurate than the RSS MSU data and shows that the RSS MSU data contains a warming bias. See “Appendix A. Comparison of MSU and RSS” in http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

–Mike Jr

I guess my mind just refused to retain such nonsense.

Is this because the ROW stations are, on average, located in more rural settings than in the US?

At a guess, it’s because US cities are, on average, better lighted.

Which factor alone would make a complete hash of the “lights equal” methodology.

“Results indicate the greatest discrepancies were over time periods where NOAA-11 through NOAA-15 adjustments were applied to the raw LT data over land. Discrepancies in the LT channel are shown to be dominated by differences in diurnal correction methods due to orbital drift; however, discrepancies from target parameter differences are also present.Comparison of MSU data with the a reduce RATPAC radiosonde dataset indicates that RSS’s method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long term trend with a warm bias.”

UAH data
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.03Jan2008

is more accurate. Why hasn’t Remote Sensing Systems (Carl Mears) corrected its data?

Mike Ramsey

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Mike Ramsey

Commenting on Hansen’s 2001 paper, Steve McIntyre had this to say,
“Indeed, a notable feature of the Hansen urban adjustment statistical method is that its efficacy is not actually demonstrated on a statistical data set of known properties, but is merely asserted and then implemented in an important practical setting – a practice that we’ve seen elsewhere in climate articles.” As you said, this is really bad science.

Positive and Negative Urban Adjustments
by Steve McIntyre on March 1st, 2008
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2815

Steve McIntyre did an audit of the 7364 stations in the GISS network. In this audit of the actual data Steve classified each station by the type of adjustmnet applied. The results are shown below.

… U.S. ROW Total
Negative 740 (39%) 1108 (20%) 1848 (25%)
Positive 1003 (52%) 1233 (23%) 2236 (30%)
“Bipolar” 324 (17%) 335 (6%) 659 (9%)

Subtotal:
Adjusted 1419 (74%) 2006 (37%) 3425 (47%)
Not Adjusted 353 (18%) 2220 (41%) 2573 (35%)
Not Used 149 (8%) 1217 (22%) 1366 (19%)
Total 1921 (100%) 5443 (100%) 7364 (100%)

The NASA negative adjustments *increase* the urbanization effects. What possible justification can there be for this?

“There are many striking aspects to the adjustment inventory.

First, 74% of all U.S. stations are adjusted, while only 37% of ROW stations are adjusted. This is a statistically significant difference by any measure. Is this because the ROW stations are, on average, located in more rural settings than in the US? Or is it because of a difference in methodology (or metadata)? While no one to my knowledge has carried out the engineering-quality investigations necessary to resolve the matter, my impression is that the US has made a fairly concerted effort to maintain weather stations in rural settings (Orland, Miles City etc.) and that many ROW stations are in cities and small towns (especially airports). Using a consistent apples-and-apples population classification, I would be very surprised if this very large difference between U.S. and ROW classifications held up.

Second, negative urban adjustments are not an exotic situation. In the ROW, there are almost the same number of negative adjustments as positive adjustments. In the U.S., there are about 50% more positive adjustments as negative adjustments – again a noticeable difference to the ROW. Some commenters on my Peruvian post seemed to think that negative urban adjustments were an oddball and very anomalous situation. In fact, that’s not the case, negative adjustments are nearly as common as positive adjustments. As such, extreme cases (such as Puerto Maldonado) need to be analyzed and explained. ”

Why is this not out and out fraud and scientific misconduct? Who is standing behind these guys?

Mike Ramsey

I mean isn’t this what we’ve been saying all along. The climate is subject to normal and random variations. Warmists go to such great lengths to stretch everything to fit the AGW dogma, but as reasonable scientifically grounded intellectuals, we must see that there is no point in trying to rebut their assertions point for point lest we should enlist to the same madness. So this August was hot. It was sure hot here in California. So! Guess what, August 1987 was hotter. I very clearly reacall the week I spent sleeping in a tent at summer camp, when daytime temperatures were in the 100s. It doesn’t mean anything except what Anthony has asserted for so long, it is what it is.

In any debate it is important not to compromise your position by attempting to convey your points in someone else’s context. A hot August in no way shape or form contradicts the “normal variation” position. And while this would seem to also score a point for the Warmists, the fact that the months preceding August were so irregularly cold, the heating in August still goes further towards validating normal variation than it does AGW. Also keep in mind that many reporting agencies were inexplicibly in a heated rush to call a minor speck on the sun a sunspot recently . Many took this as a rush to dispel some theories about the suns role (imagine that) in alleged global warming. However again, justaposing new sunspots and a warmer August create a more compelling case for the natural variation crowd, than for the Warmists. So the “mania” ends up contradicting itself, and providing a well constructed case for the more rational thinkers. Good things happen when you stand firm in your beliefs.

Have you all heard that this year saw the second lowest Arctic Sea ice levels in recorded history, after last year. Sure you could also say that Arctic Sea ice levels are UP 9% from last year, but who would that scare.

Anecdotally, I can pull up my electricity bill and compare kwh usage for each month/year that I’ve been a consumer. My summertime usage was 75% less than just last year, 50% less then the year before last. Of course, if I mnassage my data in an arcane and unknowable way, maybe I can convince you that in fact, my bill actually increased?

I find it amazing that there is no standard for temperature recording, or one that is followed. That our temperature record is continually adjusted, “in the dark”, so to speak. This should absolutely be completely open, open to review and debate (as needed) so that the real “picture” could more easily be revealed. To do otherwise speaks loudly of the fragility of the process, and opens the door to calls of fraud and deceit.

We, in the IT industry, have a more direct way of saying the above: GIGO – garbage in, garbage out.

It is not unlike arm waiving statements at NOAA et al that “urban heat island effects have been accounted for”. There are are numerous peer reviewed papers dispelling that assumption.

Further, micro site issues have also been documented at surfacestations.org and in other peer reviewed articles.

I am viewing these matters from experience in my field of work, not merely as a skeptic. Seriously, if industrial standards applied to climate “science”, submitting data claiming to be within +/-.075 C with the problems highlighted with these surface stations would result in revoking said lab’s certification.

Well, IIRC, from CA, around 40% is adjusted warmer. (Urban cool parks, you see.) Overall, I believe there is a minuscule cooling adjustment applied.

But then, NOAA adjusts SHAP warmer to account for site violations.

Is the process open to outside review?

CA has been trying to desconstruct the ASCII dump.

“Most of [Remote Sensing Systems] research is supported by the Earth Science Enterprise program at NASA.” Once again, a FOIA request seems in order.

These guys are spending our money. They need to be held accountable for how that money is spent. Congress seems unable or unwilling to perform that oversight. Perhaps private citizens or public interest groups need to get more involved.

One last point. Hansen has said that he uses “satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.”
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Note that the data is not discarded but adjusted. How is this data adjusted? Is the process open to outside review? Sounds like another FOIA request. The various efforts to investigate the condition of weather stations might better be focused on those stations being used to adjust the urban stations. If they are bad then the adjustments are bad.

–Mike Ramsey