WUWT Video – Zeke Hausfather explains the new BEST surface data set at AGU 2013

Hausfather? in title

Obviously, Zeke, Mosher and Robert are smart guys with the best intentions. Its just that we cannot be sure that this methodology is producing true results.
Take 20,000? stations and splice them up into 160,000 (now shorter) records and there is much higher trend than the original raw records show.
Okay, that tells you the methodology produces a higher trend. How does one double-check 160,000 spliced-up records? Why does the methodology produce a higher trend? What is the individual trend-raising rates for each particular component of the methodology. Why is there no warm 1930s period for the majority of the US in the numbers. When a record was set on July 8, 1936 in hometown Kansas, why does that not show up in the new reconstruction.
I think best intentions does not mean true. We need all the data and various other diagnostics to double-check the results.

There is too much confusion said the joker to the thief!
Jimi Hendrix – All Along The Watchtower
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7eonk_jimi-hendrix-all-along-the-watchtow_music
Weird Statistics to explain weird results!

I always think in terms of “my backyard.”
My backyard has a thermometer and a large garden and there are definitive guidelines of when things can be planted. The dates are exactly the same as they have always been for 100 years.
One can tempt fate and try a little earlier. Nope, Mama Nature gives you a spanking.
This year, the snow melted out at its latest date ever, going back 100 years. But, planting times remained exactly the same. The solar angle and the tilt of the Earth warmed the ground up at exactly the same time as it has always done.
If it were truly 1.5C warmer, those dates would have changed by now and the snow would not have left at its latest date on record. My backyard tells the truth.

@Zeke Hausfather at 12/13 6:32 pm in Dec. 12 post
Stephen Rasey: the march of the thermometers meme was so 2010. Berkeley uses ~40,000 stations, and 2012 has more station date than any prior year (it increases pretty monotonically. GHCN-M version 3 (which NCDC/NASA now use) also has much more station data post-1992 than the prior version 2.
Stephen Rasey at 12/15 12:49 pm
@Zeke Hausfather at Dec 13, 6:32 pm

…..
Let’s take a look at BEST results for Iceland.
You say that BEST has over 40,000 stations. The page lists 40,747.
Dumb question #1. Are these 40,747 “stations”
A) separate thermometer locations with potentially discontinuous records, before the application of the BEST scalpel? or
B) virtual stations CREATED by taking a slice from far fewer locations. For example they are from 8000 geographic locations with an average of 4 scalpel-slice “breakpoints” in each location records.
C) Neither (A) nor (B).
Under (B), you get more “stations” by making more breakpoints. The claim that you have more stations implies you have more coverage and better data. But if stations are created by a new breakpoints, more stations hints at worse data, [shorter average record lengths,] greater uncertainty and more loss of low frequency information.
So what is closer to the truth?
(A) where you have 40,747 station thermometer records you slice into 200,000 segments or
(B) you have fewer than 10,000 thermometer locations you slice into 40,747 “stations.”

This question has been out on a prior post there unanswered for 3 days.
Let’s see what GHCN-M Version 3.2.0 says:

GHCN-M Version 3.2.0 contains monthly climate data from weather stations worldwide. Monthly mean temperature data are available for 7,280 stations, with homogeneity-adjusted data available for a subset (5,206 mean temperature stations). Data were obtained from many types of stations. For the global component of this indicator, the GHCN land-based data were merged with an additional set of long-term sea surface temperature data; this merged product is called the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) data set, Version #3b (Smith et al., 2008).
Source: epa.gov

If the “march of the thermometers”, i.e. the Great Dying of Thermometers “is so 2010” as you say in ridicule,
you must be implying (A);
40,000 weather stations split into about 200,000 segments via BEST breakpoints.
But it appears from GHCN-M to be (B).
About 7,000 weather stations that you slice with break points into 40,747 station record segments.
So what is it Zeke? A or B?
Would 97% of general scientists and engineers agree with your assertion that BEST has “over 40,000 stations” and not 40,000 station record segments or station fragments from about 7,000 weather stations?

…..as long as we’re quoting songs, when I look at BEST I think of David Lee Roth in ‘Panama’ …….”We’re running a little bit hot tonight”….

Zeke Hausfather leaves me a little bit cold (no pun intended), midway through the interview, with his explanation for the absence of error bars. Sure, one can look it up, as he says, but shouldn’t the error range be shown in the presentation? A shaded range would not have made the graphs confusing. He seems bright and articulate (and I apologize for insulting statements I made in a comment a few days ago) but is it possible he’s being a little disingenuous about the confidence in those graphs?

Stephen Rasey says: December 18, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Would 97% of general scientists and engineers agree with your assertion that BEST has “over 40,000 stations” and not 40,000 station record segments or station fragments from about 7,000 weather stations?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
deserves an answere

Mosher has declared innumerable times on the internet that according to basic physics, adding C02 to the atmosphere makes the atmosphere warmer. Keeping in mind these declarations, who thinks he will then produce any analysis that shows otherwise?
Andrew

I just caught it, Anth-ny did the interview. !!
Nicely done.
Questions asked, questions answered.