Janice,
You beat me to it.
Steve,
Raw data is crap?
What is it after you get done slicing, dicing, and estimating it? Do you add deodorizer to make it smell better?
“We dont adjust data. We identify breakpoints and slice.
Then we estimate a field.” S Mosher quote
…IE interpretation: we don’t adjust data, we just sort of manipulate, alter, change, vary, etc data
Come back to the reality and admit what you are doing!!!
From Dictionary:
ad·just [uh-juhst]
verb (used with object)
1. to change (something) so that it fits, corresponds, or conforms; adapt; accommodate:
Below, I added my interpretation in (in parenthesis).
Yes – Janice – I am in work, and was checking my private email). Are you running for something in November??
From Steven Mosher:
We identify breakpoints and slice. (or change the data so that it fits) Then we estimate a field (to conform of adapt the sliced piece to accommodate the improved dataset)
Reg Nelson
December 12, 2013 12:47 pm
Steven Mosher says:
There is the raw data if you like crap.
——
I actually agree with this. Anything other than the satellite data is crap and is not suited for the purpose it is being used. It should be thrown in the bin.
Crap data leads to crap results and crap science, no matter how you slice it and dice it. You can put lipstick on pig, but at the end of the day it’s still a pig.
“raw data is crap” S Mosher,
IE: Yes, we don’t want to actually believe that all the observations are real…
…….so we make up our own as we know better that the real data!
Mark Bofill
December 12, 2013 12:56 pm
Sometimes raw data is crap. Is there something noble about including an obviously bogus reading of say 0C from an obviously broken sensor into a temperature average? I hope there’s at least something noble about it, because it certainly isn’t going to improve the scientific result.
I used to wonder why Steven Mosher seemed to delight in posting obnoxious posts here. I’ve long since quit wondering.
MB your post helps nothing here as a few obvious wrong readings have nothing to do with data manipulation at all!
Janice Moore
December 12, 2013 1:01 pm
@ur momisugly Mario Lento — just my lame attempt at a joke (the guy sounded like a typical politician, to me, heh, heh).
Loved the “sanitized” version of M0-sher’s prevarication. BRAVISSIMO. Attention Mario Lento’s boss: He is NOT using company resources or time, here!
#(:))
Hope your afternoon goes well.
************** @ur momisugly BW — great minds! (less than 4 minutes……. next time! (smile))
You mean they couldn’t get Richard or Elizebeth Muller?
Resourceguy
December 12, 2013 1:05 pm
If seismic data was termed crap, no amount of filtering would show anything interesting or not. If financial data was crap, it would…..make a minority of people a lot of money. If economic data was all crap, it would….generate a lot of publications anyway. And, if engineering data was crap, it would injure a lot of people. I suspect climate data is some of all these cases.
Pamela Gray
December 12, 2013 1:08 pm
It’s been hot before. Real thermometers can register hot weather. They can even reflect a hot decade. Heck, it’s been known that “hot and dry” can last even longer than a decade. So can wet and cool. And then it can turn on a dime. The obvious question is: And…?
The rest of us that have history, and even oral history, will just plant something else. We adapt. We say, “Oh well, it rains on both the good and the evil. No benefit to wringing our hands over what or who dunit.” We don’t have a god-complex. But apparently BEST does?
You’re right Steve the raw data is crap, but it is what we have, and what you do with it doesn’t make it better it makes it worse.
Mark Bofill
December 12, 2013 1:21 pm
Holts,
holts says:
December 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm
MB your post helps nothing here as a few obvious wrong readings have nothing to do with data manipulation at all!
I hate to interrupt a tribal ritual or whatever the heck this is, but if the group here is accusing Steven Mosher of manpulating data, I’d like to hear the basis.
I’m not sure if the general populace is aware that Sherlock Mosher was the one who busted Gleick in the Heartland fraud affair. This doesn’t strike me as the typical behavior of a Team player.
Come on people. Quit behaving like a bad mirror of SkS drones.
Reg Nelson says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm Anything other than the satellite data is crap and is not suited for the purpose it is being used. It should be thrown in the bin.
Satellites actually are unable to measure surface temperatures with accuracy the surfacestations do. So I’m not much sure what is the message?
“raw data is crap” S Mosher
Is S. Mosher for real?
Raw data is Data! Do anything to it and it ceases to be data, but becomes results or perhaps information. Data only comes from observation, with measurement being, hopefully, a more precise, accurate and reproducible form of observation. Nothing else is data.
Perhaps Mr. Mosher should return to his wall in Wonderland and leave the world to realists.
(Attn mods. The last line may be over the top, if so please delete).
phodges says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:19 am
…
“I have looked extensively at local temperature series. The raw plots are given but are then altered to match some mythical regional trend. If none of the local stations show that trend, then from where does it come?”
Their imagination, I think!
~Don
Mario.
Are we headed for doom. Dunno.
Our goal was simple. Collect and use all the data.
Use methods first suggested by skeptics.
Show everything we did.
Doomsaying is above my paygrade
NikFromNYC
December 12, 2013 1:41 pm
Steve Mosher says:
“There are no adjustments.” / “We dont adjust data. We identify breakpoints and slice.”
Yet BEST data that show no breakpoints show great adjustment: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/6691
The *way* breakpoints are determined can readily be parameter tweaked for any random result you desire, such as one that matches climate models, as BEST indeed does as it now storms above even HadCRUT4. That represents an adjustment indeed, via parameter adjustment, which are then dishonestly called “empirical breakpoints.” The BEST breakpoints do not appear where any visual breakpoints exist, more often than not. Central England, plotted in my above link, gets turned into a hockey stick, thus: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/24994
Just because the breaks are via computer code doesn’t make them “empirical” especially if they do not correspond to actual sudden data jumps. I also plotted Berlin, which shows no such jumps, yet BEST slices and dices like crazy, again seemingly based not on the temperature record itself but on “regional differences”: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/155192
Also, older data is discarded without explanation or peer review, just like NASA GISS cuts off data before 1880. Central England, goes back to the late 1600s yet BEST also cuts it off before 1880 even though the resulting BEST hockey stick goes back to 1800. I also plotted Minneapolis, back to 1820, yet BEST cuts it off in 1859.
MB all I said was manipulating data as in altering changing varying etc data… U put the wrong slant on it that I did not intend mate
Scott Basinger
December 12, 2013 1:55 pm
3 of the good ones. They are an example for others to follow.
Reg Nelson
December 12, 2013 1:55 pm
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
December 12, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Reg Nelson says:
Satellites actually are unable to measure surface temperatures with accuracy the surfacestations do. So I’m not much sure what is the message?
—————
NASA claims the accuracy of the satellite measurements are within 0.03 C. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Or are you saying that measurements taken in the 1920’s are more accurate than that?
There is no such thing as raw data.
All data comes with assumptions and theory.
There are first reports.
These are error prone.
Use them and youll be wrong
Janice,
You beat me to it.
Steve,
Raw data is crap?
What is it after you get done slicing, dicing, and estimating it? Do you add deodorizer to make it smell better?
And now we know things have warmed up a little from the LIA, the coldest time since the Ice Age.
Any more gems?
“We dont adjust data. We identify breakpoints and slice.
Then we estimate a field.” S Mosher quote
…IE interpretation: we don’t adjust data, we just sort of manipulate, alter, change, vary, etc data
Come back to the reality and admit what you are doing!!!
From Dictionary:
ad·just [uh-juhst]
verb (used with object)
1. to change (something) so that it fits, corresponds, or conforms; adapt; accommodate:
Below, I added my interpretation in (in parenthesis).
Yes – Janice – I am in work, and was checking my private email). Are you running for something in November??
From Steven Mosher:
We identify breakpoints and slice. (or change the data so that it fits) Then we estimate a field (to conform of adapt the sliced piece to accommodate the improved dataset)
Steven Mosher says:
There is the raw data if you like crap.
——
I actually agree with this. Anything other than the satellite data is crap and is not suited for the purpose it is being used. It should be thrown in the bin.
Crap data leads to crap results and crap science, no matter how you slice it and dice it. You can put lipstick on pig, but at the end of the day it’s still a pig.
“raw data is crap” S Mosher,
IE: Yes, we don’t want to actually believe that all the observations are real…
…….so we make up our own as we know better that the real data!
Sometimes raw data is crap. Is there something noble about including an obviously bogus reading of say 0C from an obviously broken sensor into a temperature average? I hope there’s at least something noble about it, because it certainly isn’t going to improve the scientific result.
I used to wonder why Steven Mosher seemed to delight in posting obnoxious posts here. I’ve long since quit wondering.
MB your post helps nothing here as a few obvious wrong readings have nothing to do with data manipulation at all!
@ur momisugly Mario Lento — just my lame attempt at a joke (the guy sounded like a typical politician, to me, heh, heh).
Loved the “sanitized” version of M0-sher’s prevarication. BRAVISSIMO.
Attention Mario Lento’s boss: He is NOT using company resources or time, here!
#(:))
Hope your afternoon goes well.
**************
@ur momisugly BW — great minds! (less than 4 minutes……. next time! (smile))
Three of the oldest continuous running thermometer stations in the world are in the USA, all of which falsify the BEST hockey stick by showing no trend change whatsoever:
http://s24.postimg.org/498mmzb6d/2agnous.gif
Few climate papers are referencing overly convenient, massively-parametrized, data-sliced-and-diced, model-matching BEST, just the 2012 up-adjusted HadCRUT4, the magic pause buster compared to boring old HadCRUT3, care of Phil Jones:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1985/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1985/mean:12
Phil was attributed to a Saudi Arabian university on his paper introducing HadCRUT4, seen here in the land of harems:
http://mpc.kau.edu.sa/Pages-Prof-Philip-Jones.aspx
You mean they couldn’t get Richard or Elizebeth Muller?
If seismic data was termed crap, no amount of filtering would show anything interesting or not. If financial data was crap, it would…..make a minority of people a lot of money. If economic data was all crap, it would….generate a lot of publications anyway. And, if engineering data was crap, it would injure a lot of people. I suspect climate data is some of all these cases.
It’s been hot before. Real thermometers can register hot weather. They can even reflect a hot decade. Heck, it’s been known that “hot and dry” can last even longer than a decade. So can wet and cool. And then it can turn on a dime. The obvious question is: And…?
The rest of us that have history, and even oral history, will just plant something else. We adapt. We say, “Oh well, it rains on both the good and the evil. No benefit to wringing our hands over what or who dunit.” We don’t have a god-complex. But apparently BEST does?
You’re right Steve the raw data is crap, but it is what we have, and what you do with it doesn’t make it better it makes it worse.
Holts,
I hate to interrupt a tribal ritual or whatever the heck this is, but if the group here is accusing Steven Mosher of manpulating data, I’d like to hear the basis.
I’m not sure if the general populace is aware that Sherlock Mosher was the one who busted Gleick in the Heartland fraud affair. This doesn’t strike me as the typical behavior of a Team player.
Come on people. Quit behaving like a bad mirror of SkS drones.
Reg Nelson says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Anything other than the satellite data is crap and is not suited for the purpose it is being used. It should be thrown in the bin.
Satellites actually are unable to measure surface temperatures with accuracy the surfacestations do. So I’m not much sure what is the message?
Janice: I’m an shareholder/owner 🙂
“raw data is crap” S Mosher
Is S. Mosher for real?
Raw data is Data! Do anything to it and it ceases to be data, but becomes results or perhaps information. Data only comes from observation, with measurement being, hopefully, a more precise, accurate and reproducible form of observation. Nothing else is data.
Perhaps Mr. Mosher should return to his wall in Wonderland and leave the world to realists.
(Attn mods. The last line may be over the top, if so please delete).
phodges says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:19 am
…
“I have looked extensively at local temperature series. The raw plots are given but are then altered to match some mythical regional trend. If none of the local stations show that trend, then from where does it come?”
Their imagination, I think!
~Don
Mario.
Are we headed for doom. Dunno.
Our goal was simple. Collect and use all the data.
Use methods first suggested by skeptics.
Show everything we did.
Doomsaying is above my paygrade
Steve Mosher says:
“There are no adjustments.” / “We dont adjust data. We identify breakpoints and slice.”
Yet BEST data that show no breakpoints show great adjustment:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/6691
The *way* breakpoints are determined can readily be parameter tweaked for any random result you desire, such as one that matches climate models, as BEST indeed does as it now storms above even HadCRUT4. That represents an adjustment indeed, via parameter adjustment, which are then dishonestly called “empirical breakpoints.” The BEST breakpoints do not appear where any visual breakpoints exist, more often than not. Central England, plotted in my above link, gets turned into a hockey stick, thus:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/24994
Just because the breaks are via computer code doesn’t make them “empirical” especially if they do not correspond to actual sudden data jumps. I also plotted Berlin, which shows no such jumps, yet BEST slices and dices like crazy, again seemingly based not on the temperature record itself but on “regional differences”:
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/155192
Also, older data is discarded without explanation or peer review, just like NASA GISS cuts off data before 1880. Central England, goes back to the late 1600s yet BEST also cuts it off before 1880 even though the resulting BEST hockey stick goes back to 1800. I also plotted Minneapolis, back to 1820, yet BEST cuts it off in 1859.
MB all I said was manipulating data as in altering changing varying etc data… U put the wrong slant on it that I did not intend mate
3 of the good ones. They are an example for others to follow.
tumetuestumefaisdubien1 says:
December 12, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Reg Nelson says:
Satellites actually are unable to measure surface temperatures with accuracy the surfacestations do. So I’m not much sure what is the message?
—————
NASA claims the accuracy of the satellite measurements are within 0.03 C. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise? Or are you saying that measurements taken in the 1920’s are more accurate than that?
There is no such thing as raw data.
All data comes with assumptions and theory.
There are first reports.
These are error prone.
Use them and youll be wrong