CET, RSS and AMSU are the ONLY reliable temperature records they show no change up to current date. PERIOD. AGW is total C@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly.
Reg Nelson
December 12, 2013 9:03 pm
jorgekafkazar says:
Reg Nelson says: You can put lipstick on pig, but at the end of the day it’s still a pig.
But will it fly?
—
Yes, but only if it drinks Red Bull first (according to the TV ads I have seen, which, as we all know, are settled science).
Sleepalot
December 12, 2013 9:20 pm
I like to compare national Met Office weather station data to that used to make climate series. I see blantant fraud and all manner of manipulations and errors. http://www.flickr.com/photos/7360644@N07/
Bill H says:
December 12, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Slicing and dicing of a data set removes the low end and then elevates the high end… now why would we want to remove th low and exagerate the high?
I cant think of a single agenda that would require that … /Sarc…
running low on money send more soon… BEST
+++++++++++
I so much want the truth. So what is BEST’s best intentions?
MattS
December 12, 2013 10:06 pm
Resourceguy,
“If financial data was crap, it would…..make a minority of people a lot of money.”
Financial guys are interested in growth. Crap is fertilizer, it promotes growth. 🙂
C02.
Like skeptics Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, and Anthony I know that adding C02 to an atmosphere will warm a planet not cool it.
Some skeptics are certain the amount of warming will be small
Some Warmist are certain the amount will be large.
Im skeptical of their certainty.
“Tilo says:
December 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm
So, Steve, I’m looking at the global Cryosphere data and a rough eyeball tells me that the global anomaly for the entire year is zero, and maybe positive. Wish they had their raw data posted. I’d like to run a trend through it for 2013. In any case, spiking around zero is typical, but having a year average at or above zero is unusual. It’s going to be difficult justifying an upward temp trend if the ice stops cooperating. I’m still going with the satellite data as being the real deal on global temp.”
#######################
Tilo you’ll be glad to hear that there is a new satillite data product coming out in a few weeks.
Its a complete dataset over the satellite era for the artic surface temperature.
Anybody care to take a bet on what the trend is?
Steven Mosher says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:12 pm
#######################
Tilo you’ll be glad to hear that there is a new satillite data product coming out in a few weeks.
Its a complete dataset over the satellite era for the artic surface temperature.
Anybody care to take a bet on what the trend is?
+++++++++++++
Trend? Over what time period? And at the Arctic, the air is so dry, there is very little energy in it. My guess is that it’s been cooling over the past year – and cooler than in 1998 🙂
Reg Nelson
December 12, 2013 10:18 pm
Steven Mosher says:
#######################
Tilo you’ll be glad to hear that there is a new satillite data product coming out in a few weeks.
Its a complete dataset over the satellite era for the artic surface temperature.
Anybody care to take a bet on what the trend is?
——
I think that would depend greatly on who is “producing” the data (product).
Is the data only “artic’ (sic)? And if so why?
Stephan Rasey.
I dont think you understand what the process is. It’s an idea that folks like Willis, RomanM, JeffID and others came up with.
Suppose you have a station.
It starts in location X. on a moutain top. For 10 years it records a summer temperature of 10C.
Then you move it down to the valley. The summer temperature goes up to 15C
What do you do.
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of 5C
B) NOAA. adjust the data because the station moved. either subtract 5 C from
one segment or add 5C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
Suppose you have a station.
At the begining the observer was collecting temperature at 7am. Then after 30 years
they collected temperatures at midnight. This leads to a spurious warming of .25C
What to do?
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of .25c
B) NOAA. adjust the data because TOBS changed. either subtract .25 C from
one segment or add .25C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
Suppose you have a station.
It starts in location X. on a moutain top. For 10 years it records a summer temperature of 10C.
Then you move it down to the valley. The summer temperature goes up to 15C
Clearly you do not have 1 station, you have 2. One was shut down, and another one started. The names may be the same, but the data sources are not (one is the top of a mountain, the other a valley).
Eliza says:
December 12, 2013 at 8:45 pm
To what year does that graph go? I bet it is 2007 or less? The BEST effort is AGW and always has been follow the money…..
##############################
The chart goes to december 2012.
We compared datasets from UAH, RSS, MERRA, NARR, NCDC, PRISM.
since all were complete through 2012, built the datasets through that period.
The point of this excercise was not what you think it is.
As for repainting screens. I’ll suggest you all look back at the actual field experiments.
wayne
December 12, 2013 10:31 pm
Sleepalot, nice collection there. I see you are onto the adjustments too.
Janice Moore
December 12, 2013 10:33 pm
“Trend? Over what time period?” (Mario Lento)
Exactly.
Dear Mario Lento,
You have such a good heart that you think the BEST guys may also. From their track record, it doesn’t look like it. They appear to be con-artists of the first order.
Thus, asking them what their intentions are is honorable, but, futile. Only “by their fruits will you know them.” They may “smile in your face,” but, so far, their actions say only that they are l!ars. They are in it for $$$. And that is it.
With admiration for your integrity and persevering great-heartedness,
Janice
***********************************
Dear Steven M0-sher,
As you can see, many of us want very much for you to be “one of the good guys.” I think, deep down, you are. Step away from those greedy l!ars and be true to your REAL self. You haven’t listened to it for a long time, but your conscience is still there and it’s saying, “Get real, man, choose truth!” Life is going by fast. Don’t spend it grubbing for gold in the dirt of pseudo-science. You are better than that.
You have a philosophy degree — didn’t that tell you anything about what really matters in life? Well, money is not it.
Still hoping,
Janice
Reg.
You like satellite data?
Uah stitches together various satellites by making adjustments to data. For example orbital decay.
And uah doesnt measure temparature. Its raw data is a voltage. This gets turned into a temperature by applying a physics model. That model is also the same model that says co2 warms the planet. I bet you thought uah was data. Its not. Its adjusted modelled outputs. Go read the theory behind satellite data.
I want to thank folks for the kind comments about climategate.
1. I wanted jones data and code so that I could do a better job.
2. My goal was to use all the data and show every step.
3. Next I wanted to use methods suggested by skeptics
A. Slicing rather than adjusting.
B. Kriging rather than averaging
Berkeley did everything I asked and skeptics asked. So I volunteered over a year of free time to help.
Bottomline. I wont say no to anybody with a better idea of how to estimate the historical climate field. But whoever has a better idea has to put in the time and live with the answer their approach produces. I dont have time for critics who wont work. I learned from steve mcintyre and anthony. If you want to criticize you better be willing to work. Sometimes for free..sometimes for years.
crabalocker
December 12, 2013 10:54 pm
I wish they could homogenize my bank account!
Paul Martin
December 13, 2013 12:07 am
Steven Mosher says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:18 pm
There are no adjustments.
There is the raw data if you like crap.
There is qc data
There is breakpoint data.
Then there is the estimated field.
BURMA SHAVE
Steve C
December 13, 2013 12:51 am
Never mind BEST. I’m waiting for TRUE.
(Temperature Records, Unadjusted, Earth).
Stephen Richards
December 13, 2013 1:23 am
The three of them have demonstrated an attachment to the AGW même as solid as Hansen and Mann. No respect for them I’m afraid.
Elizabeth
December 13, 2013 1:54 am
Oh well Mosher must the right The earth is heating beyond belief due to C02. LOL
Anthony Violi
December 13, 2013 1:54 am
Steven Mosher says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Stephan Rasey.
I dont think you understand what the process is. It’s an idea that folks like Willis, RomanM, JeffID and others came up with.
Suppose you have a station.
It starts in location X. on a moutain top. For 10 years it records a summer temperature of 10C.
Then you move it down to the valley. The summer temperature goes up to 15C
What do you do.
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of 5C
B) NOAA. adjust the data because the station moved. either subtract 5 C from
one segment or add 5C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
Suppose you have a station.
At the begining the observer was collecting temperature at 7am. Then after 30 years
they collected temperatures at midnight. This leads to a spurious warming of .25C
What to do?
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of .25c
B) NOAA. adjust the data because TOBS changed. either subtract .25 C from
one segment or add .25C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
————————————————————–
Here’s an idea Steven.
Use all the stations we have always used for the last century. Like every single one.
All the databases are unrecognizable since stations have been deleted ad nauseam over time.
Lets use them all over 2 centuries, and if takes another 100 years, so be it.
We have plenty of time, we have been flat for at least 12 years according to GISS and 17 according to RSS.
charles nelson says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Steven Mosher is actually a real person!
Wow.
I already suspected that as he and I are supposedly Linkedin.
David A
December 13, 2013 2:46 am
Humm, sounds very difficult to constantly change stations, change elevations, change locations, compensate for different TOB adjustments, compensate for changes to stations etc, add in all the known and unknowns, homengise relative to nearby stations, and come up with a correct solution. (Lip stick on a pig, or twister with five points of contact may be valid) The potential for FUBAR is real.
In the US alone we have many continuously active stations since the early 1900s. Same station, same location, same elevation, (This accounts for many, but of course not all variables) They show the US as being warmer in the late 30s and early 1940s, at the same time the arctic ice was known to be retreating. The vast majority of the highest recorded Ts were from that time period. Stream flow data from that period also indicates drought far worse then we have experienced since. US average T graphs fro the 1980s and 1990s show the US was as warm, or warmer then the current decade. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
Also, I have yet to hear how the Iceland adjustments are justified, or how many other specific area adjustments are justified, which people have identified and questioned in comments above.
Also the land adjustments appear to be diverging ever further from RSS.
CET, RSS and AMSU are the ONLY reliable temperature records they show no change up to current date. PERIOD. AGW is total C@ur momisugly@@ur momisugly.
jorgekafkazar says:
Reg Nelson says: You can put lipstick on pig, but at the end of the day it’s still a pig.
But will it fly?
—
Yes, but only if it drinks Red Bull first (according to the TV ads I have seen, which, as we all know, are settled science).
I like to compare national Met Office weather station data to that used to make climate series. I see blantant fraud and all manner of manipulations and errors.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7360644@N07/
Bill H says:
December 12, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Slicing and dicing of a data set removes the low end and then elevates the high end… now why would we want to remove th low and exagerate the high?
I cant think of a single agenda that would require that … /Sarc…
running low on money send more soon… BEST
+++++++++++
I so much want the truth. So what is BEST’s best intentions?
Resourceguy,
“If financial data was crap, it would…..make a minority of people a lot of money.”
Financial guys are interested in growth. Crap is fertilizer, it promotes growth. 🙂
C02.
Like skeptics Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, and Anthony I know that adding C02 to an atmosphere will warm a planet not cool it.
Some skeptics are certain the amount of warming will be small
Some Warmist are certain the amount will be large.
Im skeptical of their certainty.
“Tilo says:
December 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm
So, Steve, I’m looking at the global Cryosphere data and a rough eyeball tells me that the global anomaly for the entire year is zero, and maybe positive. Wish they had their raw data posted. I’d like to run a trend through it for 2013. In any case, spiking around zero is typical, but having a year average at or above zero is unusual. It’s going to be difficult justifying an upward temp trend if the ice stops cooperating. I’m still going with the satellite data as being the real deal on global temp.”
#######################
Tilo you’ll be glad to hear that there is a new satillite data product coming out in a few weeks.
Its a complete dataset over the satellite era for the artic surface temperature.
Anybody care to take a bet on what the trend is?
Steven Mosher says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:12 pm
#######################
Tilo you’ll be glad to hear that there is a new satillite data product coming out in a few weeks.
Its a complete dataset over the satellite era for the artic surface temperature.
Anybody care to take a bet on what the trend is?
+++++++++++++
Trend? Over what time period? And at the Arctic, the air is so dry, there is very little energy in it. My guess is that it’s been cooling over the past year – and cooler than in 1998 🙂
Steven Mosher says:
#######################
Tilo you’ll be glad to hear that there is a new satillite data product coming out in a few weeks.
Its a complete dataset over the satellite era for the artic surface temperature.
Anybody care to take a bet on what the trend is?
——
I think that would depend greatly on who is “producing” the data (product).
Is the data only “artic’ (sic)? And if so why?
Stephan Rasey.
I dont think you understand what the process is. It’s an idea that folks like Willis, RomanM, JeffID and others came up with.
Suppose you have a station.
It starts in location X. on a moutain top. For 10 years it records a summer temperature of 10C.
Then you move it down to the valley. The summer temperature goes up to 15C
What do you do.
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of 5C
B) NOAA. adjust the data because the station moved. either subtract 5 C from
one segment or add 5C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
Suppose you have a station.
At the begining the observer was collecting temperature at 7am. Then after 30 years
they collected temperatures at midnight. This leads to a spurious warming of .25C
What to do?
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of .25c
B) NOAA. adjust the data because TOBS changed. either subtract .25 C from
one segment or add .25C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
@Steven Mosher
Clearly you do not have 1 station, you have 2. One was shut down, and another one started. The names may be the same, but the data sources are not (one is the top of a mountain, the other a valley).
EM smith also does not understand the process.
Eliza says:
December 12, 2013 at 8:45 pm
To what year does that graph go? I bet it is 2007 or less? The BEST effort is AGW and always has been follow the money…..
##############################
The chart goes to december 2012.
We compared datasets from UAH, RSS, MERRA, NARR, NCDC, PRISM.
since all were complete through 2012, built the datasets through that period.
The point of this excercise was not what you think it is.
As for repainting screens. I’ll suggest you all look back at the actual field experiments.
Sleepalot, nice collection there. I see you are onto the adjustments too.
“Trend? Over what time period?” (Mario Lento)
Exactly.
Dear Mario Lento,
You have such a good heart that you think the BEST guys may also. From their track record, it doesn’t look like it. They appear to be con-artists of the first order.
Thus, asking them what their intentions are is honorable, but, futile. Only “by their fruits will you know them.” They may “smile in your face,” but, so far, their actions say only that they are l!ars. They are in it for $$$. And that is it.
With admiration for your integrity and persevering great-heartedness,
Janice
***********************************
Dear Steven M0-sher,
As you can see, many of us want very much for you to be “one of the good guys.” I think, deep down, you are. Step away from those greedy l!ars and be true to your REAL self. You haven’t listened to it for a long time, but your conscience is still there and it’s saying, “Get real, man, choose truth!” Life is going by fast. Don’t spend it grubbing for gold in the dirt of pseudo-science. You are better than that.
You have a philosophy degree — didn’t that tell you anything about what really matters in life? Well, money is not it.
Still hoping,
Janice
Reg.
You like satellite data?
Uah stitches together various satellites by making adjustments to data. For example orbital decay.
And uah doesnt measure temparature. Its raw data is a voltage. This gets turned into a temperature by applying a physics model. That model is also the same model that says co2 warms the planet. I bet you thought uah was data. Its not. Its adjusted modelled outputs. Go read the theory behind satellite data.
I want to thank folks for the kind comments about climategate.
1. I wanted jones data and code so that I could do a better job.
2. My goal was to use all the data and show every step.
3. Next I wanted to use methods suggested by skeptics
A. Slicing rather than adjusting.
B. Kriging rather than averaging
Berkeley did everything I asked and skeptics asked. So I volunteered over a year of free time to help.
Bottomline. I wont say no to anybody with a better idea of how to estimate the historical climate field. But whoever has a better idea has to put in the time and live with the answer their approach produces. I dont have time for critics who wont work. I learned from steve mcintyre and anthony. If you want to criticize you better be willing to work. Sometimes for free..sometimes for years.
I wish they could homogenize my bank account!
BURMA SHAVE
Never mind BEST. I’m waiting for TRUE.
(Temperature Records, Unadjusted, Earth).
The three of them have demonstrated an attachment to the AGW même as solid as Hansen and Mann. No respect for them I’m afraid.
Oh well Mosher must the right The earth is heating beyond belief due to C02. LOL
Steven Mosher says:
December 12, 2013 at 10:20 pm
Stephan Rasey.
I dont think you understand what the process is. It’s an idea that folks like Willis, RomanM, JeffID and others came up with.
Suppose you have a station.
It starts in location X. on a moutain top. For 10 years it records a summer temperature of 10C.
Then you move it down to the valley. The summer temperature goes up to 15C
What do you do.
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of 5C
B) NOAA. adjust the data because the station moved. either subtract 5 C from
one segment or add 5C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. It moved for christs
sake. Split the record dont adjust it
Suppose you have a station.
At the begining the observer was collecting temperature at 7am. Then after 30 years
they collected temperatures at midnight. This leads to a spurious warming of .25C
What to do?
A) Raw data lover. Leave the data alone. The record now shows a warming of .25c
B) NOAA. adjust the data because TOBS changed. either subtract .25 C from
one segment or add .25C to the other
C) The skeptic approved position. These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
D) The berkeley method: These are two different stations. You changed the TOBS for christs sake. Split the record dont adjust it
————————————————————–
Here’s an idea Steven.
Use all the stations we have always used for the last century. Like every single one.
All the databases are unrecognizable since stations have been deleted ad nauseam over time.
Lets use them all over 2 centuries, and if takes another 100 years, so be it.
We have plenty of time, we have been flat for at least 12 years according to GISS and 17 according to RSS.
charles nelson says:
December 12, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Steven Mosher is actually a real person!
Wow.
I already suspected that as he and I are supposedly Linkedin.
Humm, sounds very difficult to constantly change stations, change elevations, change locations, compensate for different TOB adjustments, compensate for changes to stations etc, add in all the known and unknowns, homengise relative to nearby stations, and come up with a correct solution. (Lip stick on a pig, or twister with five points of contact may be valid) The potential for FUBAR is real.
In the US alone we have many continuously active stations since the early 1900s. Same station, same location, same elevation, (This accounts for many, but of course not all variables) They show the US as being warmer in the late 30s and early 1940s, at the same time the arctic ice was known to be retreating. The vast majority of the highest recorded Ts were from that time period. Stream flow data from that period also indicates drought far worse then we have experienced since. US average T graphs fro the 1980s and 1990s show the US was as warm, or warmer then the current decade.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/spectacularly-poor-climate-science-at-nasa/
Also, I have yet to hear how the Iceland adjustments are justified, or how many other specific area adjustments are justified, which people have identified and questioned in comments above.
Also the land adjustments appear to be diverging ever further from RSS.