Still Waiting …

I have been waiting for five years for a response from the Rapid Response Team, six months for a response from @AskDrH, and couple of years for Mosher to tell me which one of the GISS versions is the golden one he keeps talking about

NASASurfaceTemp1981-1999-2014

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Still Waiting …

  1. The Rapid Response Team has been disbanded and its members were assigned permanently to the CACA ICU.

  2. Daavid A says:

    You expect a great deal. I have repeatedly challenged Mosher to explain just this ONE adjustment… Same with Nick Stokes

    Same with Nick Stokes

    BTW, concerning the criticism of some of your NCHD graphics of raw data for all reporting US stations, where the complaint is you are just doing a simple average to different stations each month, I have a couple of questions.
    One is this appears to be just what they do with their final data set, in that it is different stations monthly, or more often, but do they weight or adjust it for altitude, latitude etc?

    Also they claim they mainly do an anomaly, which again appears to not be consistent on what station they use for their anomaly, but can you, or have you done an anomaly chart of raw stations used, vs themselves over the base period?

    I suspect it would show a similar trend, or non-trend, and then, being a station compared against itself over the entire period, be incontrovertible from SOME of the criticism. UHI of course, as well as thermometer moves for the same station, plus TOB etc., would all come into play, but just seeing the raw anomaly for the consistently active US stations would appear to be reasonable.

    • Allt their complaints are bullshit. The USHCN network is designed to have relatively even spacing, so gridding does almost nothing. Anomaly and absolute temperature graphs show almost exactly the same trend.

      Altitude adjustments are not attempted, and they are a joke. Lower elevations stations often are colder than higher elevation stations – because cold air sinks.

      • rah says:

        Back in the 80s when I was in SF President Reagan expanded the size of SF. Well of course they didn’t have enough SF troops to fill all the new slots. So the Army in it’s infinite wisdom decided that they would induce the SF qualified NCOs that were not serving in SF units to fill the out the ranks. So my team ended up with a Team Sergeant that had no experience and didn’t know crap. He had just gone to the qualification course years before and then went back to the regular Army. I didn’t like the SOB at all either and judged him to be a severe liability to the team. In short, I wouldn’t have ever gone to war with that guy and told him so.

        First time out with him it was fall and we were just training in tactical movement following the route of the Black Angle Trail in the White mountains of NH. Trying to transit such country which is a popular tourist area where traversing off the trail is very rough because of terrain and is great training. If you can move undetected through such heavily used and channelized hiking areas then your doing very well.

        First night we bivouacked on a slope. All of us that were experienced knew that night a cold breeze would be coming down the slope once the sun went down and arranged out shelters with that in mind. Of course our new Team Sargent didn’t have a clue and obviously was not smart enough to adapt by observation so froze his ass off. Next morning he asked me about it. I explained to him about the breeze of cold air coming down the slope as it cooled at night. He asked me why I didn’t tell him. My non-answer was the answer. Thankfully after about 3 months they moved him to some Battalion staff position that was more suited for his experience. He just wasn’t suited for being on the sharp end and our great Team Leader, Capt. Eliot Lash finally managed to convince the Company commander to get him off the team.

      • Frank K. says:

        “Altitude adjustments are not attempted, and they are a joke. Lower elevations stations often are colder than higher elevation stations – because cold air sinks.”

        As long as you are consistent and the land elevations haven’t changed over time (Denver is still the mile high city right?), then altitude should not matter. Your spatial 2 meter temperature readings (implying 2 meters about the Earth’s surface) do not care about altitude at all. Or to put it another way…does a 50 F outdoor temperature feel different to you in Denver than it does in Miami? (The answer is no).

        TOBS may be a legitimate correction, but not in modern times where temperatures are monitored 24/7. It’s also a model and so introduces its own error. Something I’m not sure has been tried is to perform a TOBS “correction” so that the modern data is consistent with the past observation time practices rather than the other way around. You could check this correction easily by comparing the modern USHCN temperatures with 24/7 data from nearby locations.

        One thing I love about this site is the posting of old newspaper and magazine headlines showing that past climate wasn’t a cold as the “adjusted” and “homogenized” climate data from NOAA and NASA would lead you to believe. Farmers and agricultural institutions in particular were keenly aware of their environment and certainly had an interest in recording correct max/min temperatures, precipitation, cloud cover and other meteorological quantities. One could probably examine old records from farm journals and related publications and compare those reports with modern interpretations of past climate.

        • An Inquirer says:

          “TOBS may be a legitimate correction.” I can understand from a theoretical point of view the desire to make that correction, but the correction may introduce even more errors. Also, there has been a number of analyses which shows that the TOBS adjustment is usually ill-advised.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Tobs is not a legitimate concern.

          I just shot that down with information from old books cira 1892 to 1918. Those measuring the temperatures back then were not idiots as the ClimAstrologists making the Tobs adjustments seem to indicate. Actually I hold those people in high esteem which is more than I can say about the numpties feeding at the public trough who call themselves ‘scientists’
          Comment link (several comments in that thread)

          Steve’s articles on TOBS

        • gator69 says:

          Pardon me Gail, didn’t see you there.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, great minds think alike. {:>D

        • Frank K. says:

          Well, perhaps the biggest issue for the TOBS correction in my view is that it ONLY applies to U.S. data! This indicates that everyone else around the world carefully and faithfully recorded their data at the correct time each day for over one hundred years. (Of course, the U.S. is only 2% of the Earth’s surface anyhow, so…)

      • Daavid A says:

        I live at 5,700′ . I regularly drive up the mountain to home. So yes you are correct, there is not a steady linear drop in T as one gains altitude. This evening the flux was exceptional. 57 at 2000″ Steady drop to 50 at 4000, then flat to 5000, then a almost flat stretch and a plunge to 42, and then a rise to 49 degrees at 5700. I suspect it is a lot more laborious to do an anomaly, station to station, but in some sense the confirmation reinforces the averaged charts. Also, it does not make sense for the raw to consistently come out lower then the adjusted, Have you found any exceptions where the adjusted T’s in conjunction with the dropped stations produces a lower average?

        Demonstrating that both the average and the anomaly are consistently lower with the raw data is persuasive. I wish I had the capacity to support your work, but I do appreciate it.

    • Daavid A says:

      I live at 5,700′ . I regularly drive up the mountain to home. So yes you are correct, there is not a steady linear drop in T as one gains altitude. This evening the flux was exceptional. 57 at 2000″ Steady drop to 50 at 4000, then flat to 5000, then a almost flat stretch and a plunge to 42, and then a rise to 49 degrees at 5700. I suspect it is a lot more laborious to do an anomaly, station to station, but in some sense the confirmation reinforces the averaged charts. Also, it does not make sense for the raw to consistently come out lower then the adjusted, Have you found any exceptions where the adjusted T’s in conjunction with the dropped stations produces a lower average?

      Demonstrating that both the average and the anomaly are consistently lower with the raw data is persuasive. I wish I had the capacity to support your work, but I do appreciate it.

  3. Eric Simpson says:

    An American Thinker post today: Warmists apoplectic as Brazil president names climate skeptic as science minister. Interesting, the new skeptical science minister is .. a communist.

    A comment (by viator) at the article:

    Another BRIC nation also has a climate skeptic as leading science adviser:

    “Putin’s top economic advisor, Andrei Illariov, rebuffed suggestions
    Russia might benefit in the short term by selling CO2 credits resulting
    from a recent decline in the Russian economy. In the long term, said
    Illariov, “the Kyoto Protocol will stymie economic growth. It will doom
    Russia to poverty, weakness, and backwardness.”

    “Among other things, Illariov pointed out that satellite and weather
    balloon measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere show little or no
    warming; that most of the Earth’s twentieth century warming occurred
    before significant human CO2 emissions; that the Earth actually cooled
    during the middle of the twentieth century, when there was the greatest
    increase in CO2 emissions; and that temperatures today are cooler than
    global temperatures that existed at the dawn of the last millennium.

    The position of Putin and Illariov was bolstered by Yuri Izrael,
    Putin’s most influential science advisor. Stated Izrael, “All the
    scientific evidence seems to support the same general conclusions, that
    the Kyoto Protocol is overly expensive, ineffective, and based on bad
    science.”

  4. Lynn Clark says:

    The red text on the graph says, “1981”. Should be “1881”.

  5. John Silver says:

    You will have to wait until hell freezes over, only a few years from now.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Hell Michigan? Or the Hell in Washington DC?

      Hell Michigan has had snow every day this year except for the 2nd and more snow is on the way. Minimum temp 3 °F and a mean of 9 °F. (Not really that cold I am surprised) The record cold for today was -15 °F in 2014. For the rest of today scattered flurries. Mostly cloudy. Near steady temperature around 8. Northwest winds 10 to 20 mph.

      Washington DC goes down to 10° F tonight with northwest winds 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 40 mph. Temperatures do not go above the high twenties for the rest of the week and that is from Wunderground whose temps skew high.

      So looks like Hell is warming up while DC freezes!

      • Gail Combs says:

        Of course the question is whether Hell is Exothermic or Endothermic? A student answered this question on an Thermodynamics Exam. HERE

  6. Eliza says:

    Yes very good news from Brasil http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2015/01/05/climate-change-denier-named-brazils-science-minister/ and the other from Russia. THIS WILL actually do something to stop the AGW fraud at last. Plus the new USA Congress i think AGW may have been dealt a mortal blow. Its only down from now on me thinks LOL

    • Frank K. says:

      The new U.S. congress plans to pass the Keystone pipeline authorization. Of course, with $50/barrel oil, there may not be a lot of economic incentive, put it will be good for everyone to see our president veto this jobs creation bill in the middle of winter.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Let’s hope the Congress also passed a bill that defunds or drastically reduces the funding of the EPA and several other bureaucratic Monsters.

  7. gator69 says:

    Individual trolls, or teams of trolls are all the same. They fire shots from their ivory towers or getaway avatars, and flee in the face of return fire.

  8. Brad says:

    In their minds they believe they’ve explained it to you. To them, you don’t get it. I think you do.

  9. sabretoothed says:

    NASA LOL

    • Gail Combs says:

      Remember all that frigid cold air is from a ‘Polar Vortex’ caused by the warm ice free Arctic. The Met office told us so just last winter and NOAA agreed….

      • Latitude says:

        ..and that was a hoot
        What’s amazing Gail is that they just keep on keeping on…
        …never seem to notice they look like complete idiots

        • Gail Combs says:

          Unfortunately they look like idiot to us because we have our eyes open but the lemmings following them do not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s