Jones et al 1986 methodical insertion of warming bias
by Warwick Hughes
Jones et al 1986 looked at 86 Australian stations and rejected 46 (25 Short term – 21 long term). Of the 40 they used 27 were short term and 13 long term. Of the long term there were 5 large cities.
The 27 short term stations were mostly only quoted from 1951 onward – regardless of what data was available. It just so happens that the years just post WWII were not prominently warm in Australia so an “automatic” warming trend was reinforced into the CRU Australian component.
Here are 11 examples where Jones et al systematically truncated pre-1951 data or ignored more rural data around many small town Australian stations. These graphics and text have been extracted from a 1992 vintage Word doc that somehow survived the decades and how many HDD’s.
Port Hedland
The aerodrome records 1951-80 shows a clear warming trend. Marble Bar, 150 kms south east, shows a similar trend over that period but a flat trend over 80 odd years.
Longreach
For the period 1951-80 this trend is sharply upward, yet if the Longreach Post Office record is spliced to the aerodrome record (post 1940s) the trend becomes markedly flatter. When Longreach is compared to Isisford, a much smaller rural centre 80 kms south, the trend is closer to neutral over about 70 years.
Mackay
The A.M.O. record 1951-80 shows a clearly steeper warming trend for Mackay when compared with St Lawrence and Pine Islet Lighthouse.
Rockhampton
Compared to Bustard Head Lighthouse and St. Lawrence, Rockhampton shows a warming trend of about 0.5°C over 70 years. Rockhampton data was used only for the period 1951-1970. The two nearby more rural sites show a similar temperature pattern but a negligible temperature change over 70 years.
Meekathara
The Aerodrome record 1951-80 shows a clear strong warming trend. The small centre of Cue, 120 kms south west however has a flat trend over 90 years.
Charleville
The trend for this station 1951-80 also shows a strong warming trend. Cunnamulla, a smaller centre approximately 170 kms south, shows a much flatter trend over about 80 years.
Kalgoorlie
The aerodrome record 1941-80 shows a well defined warming. However, when Post Office records are spliced on, the trend is much closer to zero over 90 years. Looking at Southern Cross, a continuous Post Office record, approximately 200 kms west, the trend is very similar, flat over some 90 years.
www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/tr027/kalgoorlie.gif
Forrest
This station 1951-80, shows a steeper warming trend than the nearby Rawlinna, where records go back to 1926.
Ceduna
A warming trend is seen over the 1951-80 period, yet the longer term and more remote Streaky Bay, where records are available back to 1925, shows a flatter trend.
Woomera
Once again, this record shows the 1951-80 warming. Broken Hill, the nearest long term station in a similar climate, shows a cooling trend over a hundred year time span.
Mt. Gambier
From 1951-80 this aerodrome station shows a strong warming trend. When the Post Office records are spliced on the trend 1860s to 1990, it is close to neutral.
It gets better, in Warwick’s blog comments, Warwick points this out:
The situation for Jones 1986 Sth Hem compilation – is that Sydney and Melbourne aside, there is not one station, long or short term, between Brisbane and Mt. Gambier. This area includes all of NSW and Victoria and contains the greatest concentration of long term recording stations in Australia. Must be one of the great and complete exclusions in the history of science.
He adds in another comment:
I have never been able to discover which stations contribute to their gridded data.
Maybe that will change now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Fie to North American imperialism! That link keeps getting redirected to the US somewhere. If you enter 37.86S 144.76E into Google Maps it takes you to Laverton RAAF base. Note the encroachment of suburbia from the East. The whole place is due to be built in as part of urban development soon, so that should make for interesting UHI affects, I mean Global Warming.
Dr A Burns (14:31:23) :
“Grid Lat 65-70 Long 110-115 shows strong warming. It contains Zhigansk and Dzardzan stations but neither of these stations show any warming.”
The now famous “Harry” encountered a somewhat similar case when temperatures suddenly soared in Guatemala. He finally traced it to an erroneous temperature reading for a mexican station. It was not visible in the mexican data, since Mexico is large and has many weather stations, but it “spilled over” into Guatemala which is a small country with few weather stations, and strongly distorted the result there. Perhaps something similar is at work here?
What kinds of biases might appear in the NCEP NCAR reanalysis dataset? I could easily download the 1948 through 2008 (daily averaged) surface variables necessary to calculate surface theta-e and see if the net planetary theta-e (area-averaged) has changed as much as the surface temperature.
Theta-e is a better measure of total energy in the system.
“Bishop deserts Turnbull as Liberals implode”
“Malcolm Turnbull’s deputy Julie Bishop has urged him to stand down amid open warfare in the Liberal Party this morning.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/27/2755149.htm
Is there an Australian component of the surface stations project? I know nearly all the locations in the Hughes report, and the grouped locations are VERY close to each other – there is no way to ethically ignore a variance in trends.
I’d love to help survey some stations here!
I’ve been thinking about how to compare the data in the mysterious master.dat.com from CRU to data from NOAA and GISS. There have not been any noticeable success in large scale statistical analysis this far as Harry the Wizard of Coding really f* up the station codes (and locations?).
However, I have been able to do some comparisons per station, like with so called Helskinki/Seutula that has the same WMO code as Helsinki-Vantaa airport. It is somehow perplexing that this mysterious Helsinki/Seutula has data sets dating back to 1828 (CRU and NOAA) or 1881 (GISS) while Finnish Met Office tells that Helsinki-Vantaa went online in 1952.
But any ways – here is a graph of mean temperatures averaged using 10 years sliding window:
http://users.tkk.fi/kse/mtemp-giss-noaa-cru.png
and here is the differenece of the yearly temperature averages between CRU and NOAA:
http://users.tkk.fi/kse/HkiSe_dm.png
Uh? As a mere computer scientist, I cannot say that there is something definitely wrong with CRU data (if that really is the data behind HADCrut) but it seems like the “value” that the people form CRU “add” to data sets seems to be quite odd.
It is quite likely, that CRU people gave a completely new meaning to definition “value added data”, I guess.
So, whom are you going to believe? Me or your lying thermometers?
Ric Werme (10:00:50) :
If anybody is interested in temperature trends across Western Australia from the 1800s to the present day … http://www.waclimate.net
Three of the 32 locations I’ve documented in Western Australia with records dating back to or before 1900 are referenced by Warwick …
Marble Bar
1901-1930 (30 years surveyed)
Average mean minimum 19.7 C
Average mean maximum 35.6 C
1971-2000 (30 years)
Average mean minimum 20.4 C
Average mean maximum 35.1 C
12 months from November 2008 – October 2009
Mean annual minimum 20.37 C
Mean annual maximum 35.42 C
Kalgoorlie
1901-1930 at Kalgoorlie Post Office
(30 years)
Average mean minimum 12.0 C
Average mean maximum 25.8 C
1971-2000 (30 years) at Kalgoorlie Airport (4km distance)
Average mean minimum 11.8 C
Average mean maximum 25.2 C
12 months from November 2008 – October 2009
Mean annual minimum 11.98 C
Mean annual maximum 25.43 C
Southern Cross
1895-1920 (25 years)
Average mean minimum 10.3 C
Average mean maximum 25.8 C
1971-2000 (30 years)
Average mean minimum 11.2 C
Average mean maximum 25.1 C
12 months from November 2008 – October 2009
Mean annual minimum 10.11 C
Mean annual maximum 25.35 C
The comparison with averages for the past 12 months is a bit irrelevant because of the brevity of survey, but nevertheless interesting. A warmmonger could argue that the mean has increased by about .2 degrees C in the past decade, despite being cooler than 100 years ago.
Southern Cross (pop 700) and Marble Bar (pop 194) would be struggling for UHI effect but there might arguably be some large town warming in Kalgoorlie (pop 29,000) – although the thermometers were moved 4km out of town to the airport in the mid 1900s. Land clearing is an unlikely influence in Marble Bar and Kalgoorlie, which are in mostly untouched pastoral country, but there could be some influence on Southern Cross, which is more agricultural. All three have lower average max compared to a hundred years ago with two seeing a tiny increase in minima.
In the 12 months to October 2009, all 32 locations dotted across the 2.5 million square kilometres of Western Australia had an averaged maximum .6 degrees C warmer than the early 1900s with averaged minimum .39 degrees C warmer than the early 1900s. These 32 locations include the five major coastal urban cities housing most of the state’s population (including the capital of Perth – 1.65 million out of a total state population of 2.2 million).
Thanks for picking up on this Anthony. Of course these selections, omissions and truncations are only some of the ways Jones et al 1986 inserted warming. They also included 5 of the state capitals.
Carl Sagan pointed out in Cosmos that the time of man is absolutely insignificant compared to the history of the earth, much less the universe…Sagan liked to tell us how insignificant we are.
So we base our ENTIRE understanding of the climate on a 30 year period, with some data removed.
THIS GW STUFF IS SO INCREDIBLY STUPID.
I can surmise that it is deliberately stupid so that it can be thrown out into the mass consciousness. I ask pro GWers “what is their favorite temperature, what do they want?”. I ask them “has the earth ever been too hot for humans?”.
I really dislike Marxists.
Geoff (14:38:26) The Bureau’s quoted Max temps for Melbourne and Laverton on 7 Feb 2009 are 46.4 C and 47.5 C respectively. From what I can see the station locations quoted are Melbourne 37.81S 144.97E which google shows to be in the CBD in Lonsdale St. just east of Exhibition St. (about 280M south of where the screens are actually located) and Laverton 37.86S 144.76E which google shows to be a grassed area on the base but no sign of the instruments. The data recording commencement dates quoted are Melbourne 1908 and for Laverton 1941. Anyone have any further insight?
On a related note, it appears the ETS may be on the rocks.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26406523-952,00.html
Bob Aughton (19:51:27) :
Geoff (14:38:26) The Bureau’s quoted Max temps for Melbourne and Laverton on 7 Feb 2009 are 46.4 C and 47.5 C respectively. From what I can see the station locations quoted are Melbourne 37.81S 144.97E which google shows to be in the CBD in Lonsdale St. just east of Exhibition St. (about 280M south of where the screens are actually located) and Laverton 37.86S 144.76E which google shows to be a grassed area on the base but no sign of the instruments. The data recording commencement dates quoted are Melbourne 1908 and for Laverton 1941. Anyone have any further insight?
http://www.waclimate.net/#laverton
@ur momisugly Billyquiz (11:50:27)
The transition from grass to asphalt tarmacs and runways is not even the half of it.
What about the fact that 50-60 yrs ago the dominant form of air transport was a piston-engined aircraft with a few dozen seats and a few dozen traffic movements per day. Today we have jet-engined aircraft (what effect jet efflux, anyone?) carrying hundreds of passengers and hundreds of traffic movements per day at these same airfields.
Then there is the expansion of airfield facilities at these airports to take into account. Larger passenger and freight terminals to handle increased air traffic volumes (power/air conditioning requirements, mini UHI, perhaps?) and a commensurate expansion of maintenance and storage hangars.
How about we throw into the mix increased car-parking facilities for all those passenger arrivals/departures.
Has any of this been adjusted for? Has anyone even attempted to model the effects of these changes?
It is interesting that Phil Jones had good insight into the problem that Warwick Hughes has hightlighted.
Phil Jones, 11 March 2003, 1047474776.txt
“…….even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warmings are only significant locally at between 10 – 20% of grid boxes.” The comment was made by Jones in criticising (ridiculing) the paper by Soon and Baliunas, 2003.
This appears to say that, because of spatial variation, one cannot draw a statistically valid inference of generalised global warming from the CRU grid of temperature anomalies, because the combination of spatial and temporal variance is too great. I think Harry may have said as much, in his own way, trying to replicate CRU graphs.
Lumping together heterogeneous data such as sea surface temperatures and inland continental surface temperatures to create a mean global temperature seems to me not scientifically valid.
Australian temperature reports illustrate the point. Australia has large low rainfall and desert areas where drought is endemic, resulting in large temperature anomalies. This is understandable if there is lack of cloud and rain.
On the other hand, coastal areas, both tropical and temperate, show little change in temperature over 140 years, except for urban sites. Even inland areas show little warming if the long term record can be obtained, as Warwick has shown.
Yet reporting of “warming” is done on a national or regional basis, using 1960-1990 as baseline. The larger low rainfall areas distort the reality of lack of warming on the coast where most people live. This in turn leads to confusion between failure of seasonal rain in a region and “climate change” due to “global warming.”
I suspect that the whole notion of a “global” warming is a statistical artefact arising from a poor concept of spatial temperature distributions and their variability. To put it simplistically, there is no inherent reason to assume that a decade of higher temperatures in Marble Bar is likely to be associated with melting of the Antarctic ice. (Marble Bar is regarded as the hottest place in Australia, I think.)
Phil Jones comment above suggests that Team CRU well understand this but find it inconvenient for their purposes. While the Team control climate science I don’t expect that we can move on.
I like Bob Tisdale’s approach, centred on ocean temperatures, currents and airflows and their wide regional influence.
Chris (21:14:48) Thanks, but we were referring to Laverton Victoria (i.e.in SE Aust). I doubt that BOM would try to pass of data from the W.A. desert as being from Melbourne.
Bob Aughton (22:14:13) :
Chris (21:14:48) Thanks, but we were referring to Laverton Victoria (i.e.in SE Aust). I doubt that BOM would try to pass of data from the W.A. desert as being from Melbourne.
Well, you never can tell! I didn’t know you guys had a Laverton over on your side of the country.
Whatever, it’s still interesting to look at the 100 year history of the WA desert variety of Laverton:
1901-1930 at Laverton
(30 years surveyed)
Average mean minimum 13.2
Average mean maximum 27.3
1991-2008 at Laverton Aero
(2.5km distance, 17 years)
Average mean minimum 13.8
Average mean maximum 26.7
12 months from November 2008 – October 2009
Mean annual minimum 13.87
Mean annual maximum 27.01
I figured out a long time ago that global warming isn’t happening in the outback of Western Australia.
You can get a fari whack of info on the Australina BOM web site:
http://www.bom.gov.au/
For Melbourne you get the following measurement stations:
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60900.shtml
Of which Laverton is one:
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDV60901/IDV60901.94865.shtml
A lot of the data is freely available for those willing to drill down to the appropriate stations. For exampl, lonbg term data for Meekatharra:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_007045.shtml
Someone with the time and inclination could ferret out some interesting findings I am sure.
Bob Aughton (22:14:13) :
That’s Laverton in Melbourne, not Laverton in WA. See above links.
I really dislike Marxists.
So, I suspect, does everyone here.
Accusing someone you don’t like of “Marxism” on the basis you don’t like them makes you look stupid. Not them. It’s Godwin’s Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) except Stalin not Hitler, since you want them to be left wing.
“I figured out a long time ago that global warming isn’t happening in the outback of Western Australia.”
I thought the same , it may pay to check your figures against the new BOM climate site.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=maxT&period=annual&state=wa
Marble bars record of 161 consecutive days over 100 defrees F to 20 April 1924 is under threat from global warming.
This has recently caused the mean Maximum temperature to drop from 35.7 to 34.2 in 1923 and from 36.9 to 35.5 in 1924 .
My server has crashed and I cannot get into my files until the new parts arrive.
Unless you guys can get the horror of this story into the mainstream media in laymans turns, agw will go on.
All the public will see is 2 sets of scientists argueing over stuff they don’t understand, and they will choose the save the polar bear side.
in the uk 99.9% of the population know nothing about this story, the contents of the email, data code and the implications.
They might have heard of a data hack, and maybe a few unimportant scientists being rude to each in private email.
The bbc will not touch it, the emails even show the scientists trying to surpress it with tame bbc sdtaff. 5 WEEKS ago.
No newspapers will touch it, no politicains will touch it. even now the royal soceity is going to invetigate it, with theie cheif global warming evangelicalist doing the work.
How about the following, all verifiable for joe public
Climate Gate – Evangelical eco christian developed some CRU code…?
All information below are in the public domain, and links are verifiable, except for the bio, all the following was simple put together via google searches.
Please do your own research, read it for yourselves, think about it, few dozen phd students, code is going to svae the world, and cost several hundred billion dollars and decide whether newsworthy or not.
To quote one of the programmers:
“Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).”
Sounds like a religion to me.
Someone who WANTS to believe that humans are bad, damaging to the environment.
so what you may ask, just another believer…
The author:
Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.
Yes, this is the guy harry is referring to in that Harry_Read_Me.txt file,
from this article:
http://www.e-n.org.uk/1129-Climate-change-and-the-christian.htm
(for all his stuff there – search tim mitchell on the http://www.e_n.org.uk website)
Not Dr Tim Mitchell yet, he is just a research student developing the computer models for the ‘researchers’ to use in climate change Reasearch unit.
Yes, this is the guy harry (presumably Ian Harris, cru research staff) is referring to in that Harry_Read_Me.txt file, ‘what did tim do’ while trying to make sense of all the code, recreate data, etc,etc,etc.
“On we go.. firstly, examined the spc database.. seems to be in % x10.
Looked at published data.. cloud is in % x10, too.
First problem: there is no program to convert sun percentage to
cloud percentage. I can do sun percentage to cloud oktas or sun hours
to cloud percentage! So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.”
Whilst many people of faith are excellent dedicated professional scientists.
I have a few doubts that an evangelical eco christian (my label), that obviously is passionate and committed to the above, may not be perhaps open as they may think they are, perhaps they should be, to both sides of the debate.
http://www.e-n.org.uk/2625-Day-after-tomorrow.htm
“The librarian chooses to rescue an old Bible, not because he believes in God, but because its printing was ‘the dawn of the age of reason’. In this film we see how far we have fallen. Lost, we retreat into a virtual world where disaster becomes entertainment and the unreal seems more real than reality itself. ‘For whom tolls the bell? It tolls for thee.’
Dr. Tim Mitchell,
climate scientist”
Dr Tim now, obviously left CRU around 2004, as published research papers dry up at
this time. Apparentally on a new more spiritual direction.
http://www.e-n.org.uk/searchpage.php?term=mitchell
where is he now?
2004
Dr. Tim Mitchell,
formerly a scientist, now a student at LTS
2006
http://www.e-n.org.uk/3639-Rhythm-of-the-rain.htm
Dr. Tim Mitchell,
Highbury Baptist Church;
formerly of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
Tim Mitchell is apparently now a student, at LTS:
London Theological Seminary
Evangelical Protestant college for the training of preachers and pastors. Provides degrees up to Masters level. includes course details and resources.
http://www.ltslondon.org
googled following sentence for his bio, link now down/unavailable on cru website:
In 1997 I moved to Norwich to carry out the research for a PhD at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. …
Tim Mitchell bio: ( a little bit changed to CAPS by me)
In 1997 I moved to Norwich to carry out the research for a PhD at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. My subject was the development of climate scenarios for SUBSEQUENT USE BY RESEARCHERS investigating the impacts of climate change. I was supervised by Mike Hulme and by John Mitchell (Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office). The PhD was awarded in April 2001.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timm/personal/index.html – Cached
So basically 12 years ago , a phd student working on thesis, put together some code, which would appear to have evolved into the mess ‘harry’ is trying to sort out make sense of,
Did anyone think, it was teams of professional programmers developing robust code?
testing models, validating data sets, archiving, backing up,etc,etc,etc
After all, haven’t we recently experience a completely financial meltdown, with more highly paid, more intelligent people, with infinitly more resources
phd students, probably self taught in fortran (ancient), followed by subsequent students, with the professors probably knowing absolutely nothing about programming, telling the students they SUPERVISE, what to do and the results they are expecting according to their theories (no pressure there then, directly or indirectly to get your phd)
Maybe we should get a few profesional to seriously lok at and audit the cdode/dataset, before billions are spent, world economies are changed.
Back to the code, and the harry_read_me.txt file. The code and datasets, will destroy this department, and AGW, if not their is truly no hope for real science
Phil Rowlands (11:12:06) :
My question is – does the meteorological community consider these datasets to have authoritative status? Are they something like that platinum bar at NPL from which all other measurements of length are derived? Are they the ‘primary standard’ for global meteorological data? Are there other ‘primary standards’ and do these too have similar issues?
I’ve asked a similar question about the calibration of the satellite data series (no, not the sensor calibration, the matching of the satellite data series for microwave reflection to surface temps to get some idea how much mW of reflection is what in degrees) and gotten no answer (other than ‘satellite calibrates sensor on internal standard’ which is nice to know, but does not answer how sensor calibrated mW of microwaves gets mapped to temperatures on the ground…).
Given that there are perhaps only three such datasets available in the western world are the algorithms used to generate them truly independant?
CRU has stated there “lost data” is substantially GHCN. GIStemp uses almost entirely GHCN. GHCN has been “cooked” (see links above to my description at chiefio.wordpress.com ) and so these two series “matching” just tells me they confirm the common selection bias in GHCN. That leaves NCDC. I’m pretty sure they are GHCN as well, but have not done the detail work yet.
The two satellite series are too short for decent comparision, but given that GIStemp leaves the present mostly alone and does it’s major data manipulations on the past, comparison to Satellites is of limited use…
Let me be clear that I’m talking about the measurements, the base observations that drive climate research. Everyone starts with the same raw data from the observing stations – does everyone adjust, massage or cherry-pick it in the same way?
Well, they DON’T start with the “same raw data”. They start with the data AFTER it has been adjusted and “preened” by each country BOM, then adjusted and preened some more by the agencies that creates the GHCN. And that NOAA driven selective process has resulted in what I’ve called “The Great Dying of Thermometers” with about 90% of them deleted. The country BOMs still have most of them, but the get shot at the front gate of GHCN.
After that, CRU, GIStemp, and I suspect NCDC don’t really have any choice in the matter… they are fed the selected highly warm biased thermometer survivors and the rest “passes through” and to the output…
I want to get away from the emails (that’s just way too easy) but if the measurements/observations are themselves questionable does that not make a fair amount of the subsequent hard work worthless.
BINGO!
anon (11:43:48) :
Given that we now know CRU’s is essentially doctored rubbish, it is self-evident the others must be too as it seems the all the custodians are a very small clique who are directly or indirectly related to the hockey team.
Yes. Emphatically yes.
Therefore it seems to me that the data from these other organizations needs to be outed
Well, I’ve been whacking away on the source code and operations of GIStemp (and found “issues”…)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
NCDC seems to be Number Three (and I’ve not looked at it yet, but given the various affiliations it is most likely just a trivial GHCN variant.)
No idea who they think is #4.
we’re going to find the spin “we’re only one of 4 data-sets and we’re all consistent with each other” win over the public. Because it is a reasonable explanation absent evidence (read leaked data) to the contrary from the other organizations.
I’ve been getting this per GIStemp for about a year now. Mostly they would point at the (hidden) Hadley CRUt and say see! Now that CRUt is “outed” it is amusing to see them point at GIStemp and say “See! We Match!”.
IMHO from this date forward all claims of “See, we match!” need to be taken to mean “See, we collaborated! See, we both HAVE ISSUES!” and even “See! We BOTH need Investigation!”.. Let them hang their accomplices in the public square. Makes my investigation easier…
Phil Rowlands (11:12:06) :
My question is – does the meteorological community consider these datasets to have authoritative status? Are they something like that platinum bar at NPL from which all other measurements of length are derived? Are they the ‘primary standard’ for global meteorological data? Are there other ‘primary standards’ and do these too have similar issues?
I’ve asked a similar question about the calibration of the satellite data series (no, not the sensor calibration, the matching of the satellite data series for microwave reflection to surface temps to get some idea how much mW of reflection is what in degrees) and gotten no answer (other than ‘satellite calibrates sensor on internal standard’ which is nice to know, but does not answer how sensor calibrated mW of microwaves gets mapped to temperatures on the ground…).
Given that there are perhaps only three such datasets available in the western world are the algorithms used to generate them truly independant?
CRU has stated there “lost data” is substantially GHCN. GIStemp uses almost entirely GHCN. GHCN has been “cooked” (see links above to my description at chiefio.wordpress.com ) and so these two series “matching” just tells me they confirm the common selection bias in GHCN. That leaves NCDC. I’m pretty sure they are GHCN as well, but have not done the detail work yet.
The two satellite series are too short for decent comparision, but given that GIStemp leaves the present mostly alone and does it’s major data manipulations on the past, comparison to Satellites is of limited use…
Let me be clear that I’m talking about the measurements, the base observations that drive climate research. Everyone starts with the same raw data from the observing stations – does everyone adjust, massage or cherry-pick it in the same way?
Well, they DON’T start with the “same raw data”. They start with the data AFTER it has been adjusted and “preened” by each country BOM, then adjusted and preened some more by the agencies that creates the GHCN. And that NOAA driven selective process has resulted in what I’ve called “The Great Dying of Thermometers” with about 90% of them deleted. The country BOMs still have most of them, but the get shot at the front gate of GHCN.
After that, CRU, GIStemp, and I suspect NCDC don’t really have any choice in the matter… they are fed the selected highly warm biased thermometer survivors and the rest “passes through” and to the output…
I want to get away from the emails (that’s just way too easy) but if the measurements/observations are themselves questionable does that not make a fair amount of the subsequent hard work worthless.
BINGO!
anon (11:43:48) :
Given that we now know CRU’s is essentially doctored rubbish, it is self-evident the others must be too as it seems the all the custodians are a very small clique who are directly or indirectly related to the hockey team.
Yes. Emphatically yes.
Therefore it seems to me that the data from these other organizations needs to be outed
Well, I’ve been whacking away on the source code and operations of GIStemp (and found “issues”…)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
NCDC seems to be Number Three (and I’ve not looked at it yet, but given the various affiliations it is most likely just a trivial GHCN variant.)
No idea who they think is #4.
we’re going to find the spin “we’re only one of 4 data-sets and we’re all consistent with each other” win over the public. Because it is a reasonable explanation absent evidence (read leaked data) to the contrary from the other organizations.
I’ve been getting this per GIStemp for about a year now. Mostly they would point at the (hidden) Hadley CRUt and say see! Now that CRUt is “outed” it is amusing to see them point at GIStemp and say “See! We Match!”.
IMHO from this date forward all claims of “See, we match!” need to be taken to mean “See, we collaborated! See, we both HAVE ISSUES!” and even “See! We BOTH need Investigation!”.. Let them hang their accomplices in the public square. Makes my investigation easier…
Nick (14:20:23) : How about looking at the paper,its methods and its conclusions before considering speculation about the selection of a small part of its data? Is that reasonable?
Pay no attention to the data, just look at the conclusions first. Is that reasonable?