I am considered a heretic by some on both sides of the global warming debate, because I refuse to tamper with the raw US data.
I have already shown why you can’t detect baseline tampering using anomalies, and thus should not use them. I have also shown how infilling missing data massively biases the US data towards warming over the past 20 years.
Now I am going to show why gridding is unimportant. The graph below shows my ungridded USHCN final averages in blue, and gridded NCDC temperatures in red.
The slope is almost identical, and the offset is probably mainly due to NCDC’s extra co-op stations. Gridding is unimportant for US data, because the stations are fairly evenly spaced, by design.
On the other hand, the data tampering being done by USHCN is huge. People on both sides of the debate should quit focusing on meaningless precision in tampered data, and instead focus on the huge inaccuracy created by tampering.
With large data sets with a random distribution of error (like missing data) real scientists do not attempt to make corrections. As soon as corrections start being made, the door is opened to confirmation bias at best – and it gets worse from there.
Leave the data alone. You are falling for an old NOAA mind trick.
Think of all of that ‘work’ that has gone into BEST and others … for nought!
Global data is different. It is such a mess that you can get whatever result you want by picking the right stations.
Judith Curry, Dept Chair at Georgia U who has the blog Climate ETC and Anthony Watts, who has the blog WUWT (Watts Up With That) were supposed to be on the BEST Team, but sort of removed themselves. The Best Team used ‘Krieging’ -smaller, long, narrow strips for analysis, but then simply used the same methods, gathered from equipment around the world which is very suspect.
They did not gather data, but used the data and simply broke it down into more detail, and I really would not trust or know how to go about making proper adjustments.
In general, I believe the precision and accuracy is very suspect, especially when the stated amount of warming is only 0.7 deg C over the last century.
The leaders daughter hyped it up for the media, but I do not think it has been accepted by the peer review process.
At WUWT, a complete US analysis is also given, the result of an inspection of all US Stations, by a team of volunteers. Many stations show deterioration, (mainly white paint), thus a majority are showing a warm bias because of absorbed heat in the boxes giving an elevated night reading. In fact, in many cases outliers are eliminated because they are said to have too low of a reading, when actually the outlier may be the only one showing a correct reading.
Secondly, the method of determining the amount of UHI is bogus, it should be higher.
Finally, as the US-48 is only 2% of the earths service, and and analysis of other areas is needed and some have shown similar problems. This subject may be the topic of a chapter of a book I am writing. I do not know how many times I will use info presented by Steve G., but it will be numerous and I hope to give adequate credit. The book will be more oriented to human nature which really has not changed much over the years.— and quite pathetic. I think Syria banning the yoyo because of its negative effects on climate is a classic. Burning witches was among the most pathetic.
If you are writing a book you should take special care and note of how you refer to earths surface as “service”. 😉
You’re not a heretic, your ideas are straightforward.
Leave the data alone – carve that in stone. If the data is shown to be erroneous – discard it. There is no way to fix it.
If there is such a huge problem from warming, and we can’t effectively measure the warming because the temperature data is sparse or flawed, (but we can – RSS), but say we couldn’t; then we would be confined to proxies for warming – ice melt, weather patterns, and so forth. Jacking with the data just makes no sense to this engineer.
Gridding never, ever, ever made any sense to me. Ever. I figured those doing it and discussing it (seemingly endlessly – you know who you are!) were up to something of at least some significance that must just be escaping me. But think about gridding; if it is done perfectly, it adds no additional information about warming. Think about that.
And may I add, I have no dog in this hunt. I do not care if it gets warmer from Man-Made CO2. I do not care if it does no such thing. I say again; I do not care in the least. But some do. And confirmation bias is a real thing.
Just the data please. Raw.
And if the warming, detected or not, is so horrible, I want to see the bodies. Show me the results.
The rest is just good story-telling and politics.
Oh – incidentally – I find it all infinitely amusing.
“I am considered a heretic by some on both sides of the global warming debate, because I refuse to tamper with the raw US data.”
You’re not considered a “heretic” by some skeptics because of your refusal to adjust raw US data. You’re considered, in fact, a bit of a jerk because you can be very pedantic, and tend to engage in rhetoric and misrepresent arguments and technical points. This is a great shame, because your own sense of infallibility distracts from some of the very interesting analysis work you have done. You’re obviously a very smart guy. Most of the Warmists on the other side of the debate seem to have the same personality flaws.
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of data after all it has been through!
The data lost her aunt, it went through a divorce. It had two fuckin’ kids.
Its husband turned out to be a user, a cheater, and now it’s going through a custody battle. All you people care about is…readers and making money off of the data.
IT’S DATA! (ah! ooh!) What you don’t realize is that data is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about it.
The data hasn’t performed on stage in years. The data’s song is called “Give Me More” for a reason because all you people want is MORE! MORE! MORE! MORE! MORE!
LEAVE THE DATA ALONE! You are lucky it even performed for you BASTARDS!
LEAVE DATA ALONE! …Please.
Perez Hilton talked about professionalism and said if data was a professional it would’ve pulled it off no matter what.
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash data that is going through a hard time.
Leave data alone please…!
Leave data alone! …right now! …I mean it!
Anyone that has a problem with data you deal with me, because data is not well right now.
LEAVE DATA ALONE!
You aren’t contributing anything useful to this discussion and will soon be spam. Then you can go whine elsewhere that I censored your mindless spam.
Jayden-was that supposed to be a “rebuttal”? Lame, even for you. If the data isn’t manipulated, show us the proof. Quite easy if you have the facts. You know, stuff one would learn in an 8th grade debate class.