Hansen fills in his huge areas of missing temperatures (Arctic, Africa, etc.) using a 1200km extrapolation. This is based on the idea that you can calculate the temperature in Chicago within 0.01 degrees, based solely on the UHI corrupted temperature in Tallahassee, Florida.
If you believe that, I have some tropical oceanfront property in Colorado to sell you.
I believe it is all based on a single paper of a million years ago, recently “updated” in the sense that Hansen confirmed what Hansen had written before.
I also believe nobody else has ever even tried to replicate the findings, let alone independently verify them.
That is so undair Steven, what Dr. Hansen meant was that yes you can cherry pick such ditances and come up with obviously ridiculous examples. But scouts honor on an average it all works out. And if that does not work hew will create an ensemble.
/sarc
The warmists also extrapolate missing heat and missing ice and missing precipitation, and do so over not just distance but time too.
I was in Tampa on Christmas day, we had an official high of 80 F.
The Weather Underground shows that Chicago was 38 F.
I’m sure Hansen knows what he is doing, when he cashes those checks.
Same goes for Vancouver – Calgary…we could be at -30 and Vancouver +10…think of the crayon’s colors….
“If you believe that, I have some tropical oceanfront property in Colorado to sell you.”
Does it includes coconut trees or do I need to bring my own..? The one that my niece planted in London ten years ago hasn’t been doing very well.
Isn’t it ‘anomalies’ that Hansen extends over 1200km?
In Gator’s example, if Tampa was 3F above the mean (for Tampa on that date) and there wasn’t a measurement for Chicago, he would assume Chicago was 3F above the mean in chicago for that date.
Isn’t that how it works?
“This is based on the idea that you can calculate the temperature in Chicago within 0.01 degrees, based solely on the UHI corrupted temperature in Tallahassee, Florida.”
No, it’s not and SG saying so doesn’t make it true.
Ummm, yes, yes it is, and DS’s such as you ignoring it and giving a free pass, is precisely why we are having to put up with this BS to begin with. Grow a pair, stand up and recognize the truth for what it is, blatant FRAUD!
Hansen uses 1200 km extrapolations to generate a 0.01 precision global temperature. Obviously he is doing exactly what you say he isn’t.
At 1200 km the linear weight is zero.
How far is Tallahassee from Chicago?
You are all such gullible morons. SG posts a lie and you all believe it.
In the era before the internet this was at least somewhat understandable – finding the necessary information meant spending long hours in the library. Today it’s a Google search away. From GISS analysis of surface temperature change Hansen et al, 1999:
SG: This is based on the idea that you can calculate the temperature in Chicago within 0.01 degrees, based solely on the UHI corrupted temperature in Tallahassee, Florida.
At 1200 km the weight is zero. The distance from from Tallahasse to Chicago is 812 miles (1300 km). This directly contradicts SG’s claim. The GISS temperature for Tallahasse has zero influence on the GISS temperature for Chicago.
More to the point, assume Tallahasse was 1199 km from Chicago; would Hansen be claiming what SG says? No. No. No. Do I need to be clearer? NO!
The GISS temperature analysis is NOT for individual cities, but breaks up the globe into gridpoints 2×2 degrees in size. ALL stations within 1200 km of the gridpoint determine the gridpoints assigned temperature. Tallahasse would have a miniscule effect on calculating the temperature of the gridpoint containing Chicago.
Of course you could always READ the paper for yourself.
This explanation still sounds like fraud. We’d never do such a thing in the medical field. No data means no data. In these temp plots, that would mean leaving areas gray. We are to believe temp changes in tenths of a degree per decade, yet move 1 mile away from a weather station and you are bound to get a different temperature (example – weatherunderground.com has several stations within 1-2 miles of my home, and they differ by several degrees). As far as these models go, garbage in, garbage out. Incredible.
It’s done ALL the time in the medical field.
Medicines are developed and prescribed KNOWING that some patients will sicken and possibly die from taking them. Why? Because perfect knowledge is unattainable. The alternative is to do nothing.
When you lack data on how an individual patient will react, you base your actions on probability, past experience, risk analysis, etc.
Earth to Kevin. This is a creepy old man doing a little self gratification with numbers who thinks he can save the entire planet from certain doom. Modern doctors perform real miracles everyday. Your analogies stink.
“creepy old man”
See the personal attacks … you don’t know the man, you know nothing of his personal life, yet he becomes to you a “creepy old man” …
That type of rhetorical garbage reflects far more on you than it does on Hansen.
LOL. Uh, he’s the one that call coal trains “Death Trains”. If he had his way, people would suffer in real terms of energy poverty across the globe. That’s all I need to say. Simple recognition of facts.
Why don’t you go live in a mud hut and stop contributing to the “death trains”? Or for that matter, why doesn’t Jimbo? The answer is because he (and possibly you) are using CO2 to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with what is claimed. I call that creepy.
Your analogy is ridiculous. I’m talking about adjusting/extrapolating/interpolating temp data, and you’re talking about practicing medicine given uncertainties. Some drug companies, however, have been caught adjusting and hiding data or otherwise been deceptive, and there you would have a good analogy (e.g. the makers of Rezulin, Vioxx, Seldane, Avandia, Zetia/Vytorin,…). Using my critical thinking skills and B.S. meter, I’ve had to sort through all that crap. Scary when the same experts paid by the drug companies are the ones writing guidelines and establishing a “standard of care,” which if not followed, exposes docs to malpractice lawsuits – we risk patient lives if we are not at least a bit skeptical about “consensus opinion.”
I think you are actually saying, AGW is real, has uncertainties, but the consequences are so drastic as to present a clear and present danger, and therefore world governments must take immediate action to curb CO2 emissions. That’s a valid opinion, but off the topic of adjusting data (this particular exchange).
@JohnB: As you well know, adjusting the data *is not* the issue.
Should data be adjusted to give comparable results? Yes.
The denialsphere has been all up in arms at various times because the data was *not adjusted* for Time of Observation, UHI effects, ship data collection methods. etc., etc.
So complaining about adjustments is now hypocritical. It’s not that adjustments have been made, but that you don’t like the results. You make no specific charge that can be rebutted – just handwaving and misdirection.
Gullible morons? Projecting a little? Even giving your linearity argument, the whole procedure is grabasstic bs. I live next to the continental divide and often when driving over it you can see clouds/moisture/air spilling over the top like a kettle boiling over. Weather 2 miles distant across the divide is often wildly different. Try reasoning on your own for once.
And yet there is still an average temperature for the area. That’s just a fact. The question is: how best do we determine it?
Your argument says nothing about why the method GISS has developed is wrong. If there’s a better method, please explain it.
Any ape could see that GISS is at best a WAG.
If you’d like to send me a few billion I’d be happy to take a stab at it.
Here’s a thought. Maybe there’s more important things to do with taxpayers money than blaming man for the non-existant ills of gaia.
@EB: In other words, you’re clueless.
No,
I completely understand that absent an argument you act like a 3 year old.
You don’t have an argument. You’re just spouting rhetoric. “Any ape could see that GISS is at best a WAG.” Yeah, that’s an argument.
In other words, you’re clueless.
Tell me, how far is Tallahassee from Chicago?
I don’t have a position other than you are a fanboy that follows any old garbage to come out of the mouth of Hansen, Trenberth et. al. I don’t need one to point out your heros are full of it. Get the point Kev? The earth isn’t going to end tomorrow or 100 years from now despite the protestations of your heros. No go play some Justin Bieber tunes and take up skateboarding. It’s something you might be able to comprehend.
@EB: Too funny man. You have no clue who my heroes are (BTW, none of them are climate scientists).
As for Justin Bieber? Man, you are clueless. I grew up on Johnny Cash, Flatt & Scruggs, and the Beatles. My tastes in my late teen years turned to punk rock – and I played briefly in a punk band (circa 1977).
Today the music I listen to is best exemplified by stations like 88.9 Milwaukee or The Current in Minneapolis.
Glad to see that your problems don’t extend to your taste in music. Given their scale that would be truly tragic.
Hansen doesn’t compute temps, rather anomalies. The idea is that if the temp goes up in Florida it will go up of a similar amount in Georgia and so on and so forth up to Illinois. This rests on many assumptions, has no explanation why 1200km is 1200km and nobody else has verified it.
@MM:You’ve not read the papers. The explanation and methodology are pretty clear. Correlations at 1200 km are still strong (r = .5), the distance wasn’t chosen at random, but was selected for its statistical significance.
Yes, it was tested. Yes, you could test it yourself. Umm, the idea that no one has ever verified it is … rather far-fetched. A quick Google search shows (inside of 30 seconds) PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF WEATHER EVENTS VERSUS ACTUAL CLIMATE DATA
A college student independently verifying the method Hansen used; albeit on a regional scale.
Of course the full global verification has also been documented through peer-review; First difference method: Maximizing station density for the calculation of long-term global temperature change Petersen et al, 1998. Wherein the authors say:
This reference took me a minute or two longer to find. If there was any point to it, I’m sure we could find more. Suffice to say that the idea that the method has never been verified is a zombie lie.
Hansen doesn’t compute temps, rather anomalies. The idea is that if the temp goes up in Florida it will go up by a similar amount in Georgia and so on and so forth up to Illinois. This rests on many assumptions, has no explanation why 1200km is 1200km and nobody else has verified it.
There is no difference mathematically between calculating an accurate absolute temperature and an accurate anomaly.
dT = T1 – T2. In order to calculate dT within 0,01 degrees , you have to know both T1 and T2 within 0,005 degrees.
SG: Quit spreading misinformation on your website. You apparently only know one way of calculating uncertainties. That you only know one way doesn’t mean only one way exists.
For example: If I have a thermometer with a 1% accuracy and I take a series of measurements at 0C and another at 100C there are an infinite number of ways to calculate the uncertainties of the resulting data.
The calculation for anomalies or absolute temperatures will yield different results. The thermometer’s 1% accuracy as an error term is NOT considered in the uncertainty calculation for anomalies.
You are way out of your depth, rather than admit it you just bluster on spreading misinformation.
The fundamental reference document is the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM). Try reading it before you spread any more misinformation.
Would that be the same kind of ‘misinformation’ Hansen displays by changing historical data?
@Gator: Rhetorical cluelessness. You excel at it.
Weren’t deniers all up in arms because the data *WASN’T* being adjusted? Now you’re all up in arms because the data *IS* being adjusted. A clear sign of insanity if ever there was one.
@Gator: How far is Tallahassee from Chicago?
Do anomaly uncertainties get calculated the same as absolute values?
You may join SG in being completely irrational, I just like to have it on record. Though two questions in one comment may be too much for your little reptilian brain to handle.
Data tampering is not acceptable
SG – Finally someone who understands how to report data with the proper number of significant digits. I think we both learned this in engineering school. I bet you also understand “signal-to-noise” ratio.
I suppose Kevin would have no problem if a NASA probe flew by a planet or moon, mapped most of the surface except the poles, but then filled in the rest of the picture with extrapolated data.
@JohnB: SG is wrong. You may be an engineer, or an MD, or whatever – but you’ve obviously never took a course in measurement uncertainty.
If you were a metrologist, you’d know. Obviously you’re not. It’s completely valid to have uncertainties better than the accuracy of the instruments used to make the measurements. Not only is it valid, it’s been proven mathematically, statistically, and supported by real world laboratory results.
That neither you nor SG are aware of this or understand it, is irrelevant. It’s still true.
Steven -haven’t you learned a thing yet – you shouldn’t be using standard mathswith no adjustments and sleights of hand
The difference between Chicago and Florida? On one channel you can watch a football game in the snow in Chicago and on another channel a football game in the sun in Florida, with everyone in the stadium in Florida wearing sun glasses and t-shirts.
@ Kevin: Answer the question weasel.
Would that be the same kind of ‘misinformation’ Hansen displays by changing historical data?
Providing accurate data is not ‘misinformation’.
Adjusting data to remove bias, differences in data collection, etc is not misinformation nor is it ‘falsifying’ data.
Telling people that the GISS temperature method “is based on the idea that you can calculate the temperature in Chicago within 0.01 degrees, based solely on the UHI corrupted temperature in Tallahassee, Florida.” is a lie. It’s misinformation.
How far is it from Tallahassee to Chicago?
“Adjusting data to remove bias, differences in data collection, etc is not misinformation nor is it ‘falsifying’ data.” I agree, so long as the adjustments have legitimate rationale, and that they are clearly explained in a transparent fashion that is open to people who use the data. Not being in the climate field, I have no idea if this has been done or not. Climategate emails suggest those who possess the data have not been transparent, not released info to people who made FOIA requests, and even some feel the original unadjusted temp records are no longer available.
I disagree with some fallacies SG writes. Imperfect, yes. Detracts from his credibility, yes. Negates his overall impression of the big picture, no.
“Weren’t deniers all up in arms because the data *WASN’T* being adjusted?”
I know that was not aimed at me! I do not believe, and never have believed in falsifying data, period.
The truth has no agenda, and you just don’t get that.
The truth? How far is it from Tallahassee to Chicago?
If we remove Tallahassee entirely from the GISS database, how much will the temperature for the gridpoint containing Chicago change? 1C? .1C? .01C?
Or not at all?
Answer the question weasel
Special K, I’m not looking for alot of excuses and hand waving. Instead of trying to excuse their behaviour, you should also be questioning it.
But you are a cheerleader, as we can all plainly see. And you have no idea just how insane you sound.
There is no excuse for tampering with historical data, there are ‘excuses’, but no forgiveness.
More cheerleading in 3, 2, 1…
@Gator: In other words, you can’t or won’t answer the question.
This is not an inquisition and I have no reason to answer questions, especially from the insane.
I contend that we are witnessing natural forces doing what they have always done. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current global climate(s) or how we got here.
You and your most questionable compatriots must prove otherwise and I, along with many others, are still waiting. You let me know when that has been done and I will gladly listen to your ranting.
Looks like I will be enjoying a long vacation from Special K.
“There is no excuse for tampering with historical data, there are ‘excuses’, but no forgiveness.”
You’re quite wrong. In a measurement laboratory, incorrect historical data *must* be revised. I.e., if a standard is discovered to have a bias, all past instruments calibrated with that standard need to have their historical measurements evaluated and their readings adjusted by the known (discovered) bias. The new (adjusted) readings are then evaluated for significance. This information must also be communicated to the owner/user of the equipment and a revised certification provided. The adjusted data, not the original historical data, is the correct data.
This type of quality control system has been in place for decades. It is nothing new. It’s understood by everyone in the measurement science field. Neither is it controversial. To do otherwise would result in sanctions, loss of accreditation, and possibly lawsuits.
I said no more excuses and I meant it. It has been done for decades, and as applied here done incorrectly.
See above and see you much later if ever.
@Gator: You’re not smart enough to do the math to see if was done incorrectly or not. Saying it doesn’t make it true.
I note you *never* actually show where the error is. Just rhetoric. Nothing but rhetoric. Your reptilian brain is not only small, but effectively closed.
Kevin,
Where is the rationale for the adjustments published?
@JohnB: The GISS website has links to all of the various adjustments, their descriptions, methodologies, and rationales.
A good place to start is with GISS analysis of surface temperature change Hansen et al, 1999
Answer: zero.
If St. Louis, Louisville, or Milwaukee, and the Arctic analogy is used (i.e. no thermometers in Chicago), then the answer is nonzero.
@John: Thanks. Yes, you’re correct.
The question then becomes, is it appropriate?
As described in various papers, sampling was done over areas that *do* have meteorological stations and temperatures estimated as if they didn’t. The results matched within the uncertainties stated.
Given that the method has been tested, proven to be statistically valid, and seems to work well, why should it not be used?
Well, your question is not in my field. But I would guess that such data might be useful in a colored map for illustration purposes, but it still seems wrong to me to plug the numbers into a climate model. No data is no data, similar to when your digital TV pixelates.
For the record:
Undergrad – biomedical engineering (included courses in statistics, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, materials science, EE, control systems/feedback loops…). My chemistry and physics were AP classes in high school.
I did medical school with a residency and subsequent practice in Family Practice. That’s my training and experience.
Believe it or not, I do wish to keep an open mind, but I remain skeptical in general, having seen enough data manipulation, faulty peer review, and the influence of money corrupt my profession. My job has been to sort through the B.S. and make my best recommendation for a particular patient, but it makes me really angry when patients die because we were given deceptive information. That’s where I’m coming from. Consensus opinion is always changing. Some areas are more certain than others – e.g. a vaccine-autism link has been thoroughly debunked by at least 8 studies, and activist Dr. Wakefield’s research which started the whole conspiracy theory had to be retracted – how many people have died or been disabled due to the anti-vaccine movement?
Does anybody want to analyze the likelihood that every adjustment end up warming the present and/or cooling the past?
@MM: Adjustments have both increased and decreased temperatures. So the likelihood is known; it’s zero.
@ Special K: No amount of new math is going to erase the MWP or LIA.
No amount of hand waving changes the fact that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented anout our current climate or how we got here.
Why are you ranting like a mad man over perfectly normal weather and climate?
You are insane.
Yes, Gator, I’m the one doing his own Private Investigator routine on anyone that that has the temerity to disagree.
I think insane fits one of us, and my shrink assures me I’m only crazy – not insane. That leaves ….
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Look up ‘delusional’ Special K! I live in the real world and do not base my reality upon computer models and adjustments.
NV has always changed climates and always will. Our climate is well within NV, so YOU must show otherwise and you have not.
Quit dithering and either show the work or admit you are wrong.
You cannot even show anything unusual about our climate.
Nothing.
Zip.
Zero.
Zilch.
You are insane.
Gator: when you get around to doing a rebuttal on F&R or H&K let me know. The handwaving I don’t need so much – even if it is you saying goodbye.
Models and guesswork.
‘Low’ to ‘very low’ understanding of 13 of 16 identified RF’s.
The end.
More ranting Special K?
Kevin – are you sure about negative adjustments? Have you seen any?
@MM: Yes, the UHI adjustments for instance decreased a lot of temps.
@MM: Just start by reading one of the papers. Then you’ll see for yourself.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf
Kevin – adjustments for UHI have both signs, so their overall effect is nil. My contention is that overall, adjustments have always been on the plus side, that is, there is no set of measurements that have been consistently adjusted downwards.
As for the papers confirming the 1200km, a correlation of 0.5 is good only when it’s climate science apparently, it would be laughed out of the place in every other science. Furthermore the 1200km is not that widely used, actually, only Hansen uses it, and then he keeps publishing the 250km data, just in case. Finally, the value in his paper has been computed outside of the Arctic, and yet it’s mostly used to make up for missing temperature readings in the Arctic.