Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

US temperature record tampering


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 17 April 2013 - 12:51 PM

"they adjusted March 2013 upwards 4.2 degrees relative to 1945. Note that the published temperature trend is almost identical to the adjustments. "

http://stevengoddard...ecord-in-march/

this shows the adjustments only, which clearly shows the adjustments introduce an inucreasng trend. the adjustments cool the US record pre ~1980, and warm the US record post ~1980.
Posted Image


#2    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 01:30 PM

Like all good scientists, he shows his sources for his data and graphs so we can check how he arrived at his conclusion - NOT.

Goddards a bit of a joke really.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 April 2013 - 01:47 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#3    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2013 - 02:37 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 17 April 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

"they adjusted March 2013 upwards 4.2 degrees relative to 1945. Note that the published temperature trend is almost identical to the adjustments. "
I have the instrumental records for the Ouachita region in Arkansas/Oklahoma.  As noted in previous posts, they correlate with observed global temperature anomalies.  All we'd have to do is check to see whether the original data, or the adjusted data better fit the model (a nice, simple straight line).  This is so easy to double-check, I'm wondering why you didn't do it.  Could it be that you don't know where Goddard got his "facts"?

Of course, you might use any of the existing datasets, but that would mean you'd have to have an older version to compare it to.  I just happen to have a couple of those, too.

This site links to an article entitled "Canadian Dogs are Better Behaved than American Dogs."  Am I supposed to trust a dog-behaviorist on the subject of data quality?  I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#4    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 02:46 PM

It seems to be a common skeptics meme that the American data record has been fraudulantly adjusted upwards, which shows a conspiratorial intent - or a paranoid mind.

I know Goddard has cherry picked data series before to make his point regarding this, is there a comprehensive argument the skeptics are basing this on - or is it purely a matter of find the location which supports the hypothesis.

I note that the great trail blazer of this meme hasn't yet resubmitted his weather station paper - is there any other out there.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 April 2013 - 03:09 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#5    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 17 April 2013 - 03:32 PM

downpours of the usual logical fallacies, attack me, attack the source.

is he right or wrong? that's what you two don't address.
explain why he's wrong, I'm all ears.
better still comment and question on his blog, and we'll see what happens.

..and doug, read the OP again - specifically this - "US temperature record"

Edited by Little Fish, 17 April 2013 - 03:39 PM.


#6    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 03:37 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 17 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

downpours of the usual logical fallacies, attack me, attack the source.

is he right or wrong? that's what you two don't address.
explain why he's wrong, I'm all ears.
better still comment and question on his blog, and we'll see what happens.
Its impossible to test whether he is right or wrong without the original source of his data to look at his analysis. Care to share it with us - the exact dataset and the exact analysis applied.

Goddard is not to be trusted, and his repeated claims that Arctic sea ice are in recovery is ample proof of that. Even Anthony Watts will have nothing more to do with his shoddy analysis - which is saying something indeed.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#7    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 04:55 PM

Just to make my position here abundantly clear;
-I would like to know what exact data he used
-I would like to know what analysis he performed to produce his graph

Only then could I be in a position to make a judgement on his assertion.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 April 2013 - 05:07 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#8    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:18 PM

as i said, you could always just ask him, simple.


#9    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:23 PM

You are making the point, its standard form to support your positions.
I am not going to engage with Steve Goddard.

Another question, why only analyze March, why not a whole year or every month of the year ?

Do you assume that the corrections are not evidence based, since every one of them is supported by a peer reviewed paper. The main one of course is TOB's, but that one is so logically obviously correct when you consider that the vast majority of record stations moved from evening to morning measurement.

http://www.skeptical...ias_Venema.html

I suspect he has looked at March because that is the main month when TOB's has its strongest influence.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 17 April 2013 - 08:30 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#10    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,680 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:25 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 17 April 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

downpours of the usual logical fallacies, attack me, attack the source.

is he right or wrong? that's what you two don't address.
explain why he's wrong, I'm all ears.
better still comment and question on his blog, and we'll see what happens.

..and doug, read the OP again - specifically this - "US temperature record"
It is standard practice to identify your data sources.  So standard that you won't get published without doing so.

The claim is that the adjustments are wrong.  You can't actually test that without the dataset.  So, Plan B:  test the idea using a different dataset.  I offered you a way to do that.  I'll gladly send you what I have to facilitate your analysis.  Without putting up a dataset, none of us have any idea whether the data were just made up or not - and that's why the dataset must be identified.  If you claim that the data have been altered, put up the evidence.

I know, the deniers claim the US ground temperature data has been tampered with.  Do you understand for a moment, how preposterous that is?  The data were collected by several thousand volunteers over more than 114 years.  I have worked with that data myself - not somebody's pre-canned set, but I have dug the daily reports out of hundred-year-old journals.  And I have spent a bunch of time reading old newspapers - where do you think I got that information about the 42-degree below zero temp in Wichita (The government's datasets don't go back that far.).  From the Wichita Eagle (which us still publishing).  One of those weather observers was Thomas Jefferson:  his is one of the weather logs we use.  You just included a President of the United States in your conspiracy theory.  Another one was Black Hawk of the Sans Arc Lakota in 1881.  Just how did he get in on this conspiracy?  I have a dataset from the Ashtabula Sentinel from 1841 to 1843 - 25 years before the "modern" temperature record even began.

Only about 20% of all existing weather data has even made it into a dataset.  As the rest is added, there will be some changes.  There is nothing surprising about this:  somebody without a life has to go over that stuff and assemble it.  And no you can't put it through one of those reader programs.  I have seen what they do to ordinary text.  If you want an intelligible result, it takes a human - a machine isn't up to the task.

An ongoing conspiracy between thousands of people for more than a century and all this just to produce a false conclusion that most the those involved could not hope to live to see.  That is beyond paranoid.

There is a discussion in your post about why 1946 shows a higher March temperature than a more recent year.  The answer:  random variation.  There is more than enough variation in temperature data to produce that result.  You could do it with any month you choose.  Whether a month in a particular year is warmer or colder than a single previous year is an irrelevant question.

You claim something nefarious is going on.  You claim that climate is not warming, but you are unable to put up a dataset that would demonstrate anything else.  You haven't posed a question that can be discussed.
Doug

P.S.:  You keep getting the same answers because you keep making the same dumb mistakes.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 17 April 2013 - 08:57 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#11    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:55 AM

doug hasn't yet realised the post is about the adjustments, not the actual measurements taken decades ago.
what a dumb ass doug is.


#12    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:00 AM

cornelius refuses to go to goddards blog, and thus thinks goddard has only looked at march figures.
a simple visit to his site could have resolved this but his misplaced arrogance keeps him in the dark.

http://stevengoddard...g-at-ushcngiss/

Edited by Little Fish, 18 April 2013 - 01:04 AM.


#13    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:58 AM

His argument is based on the assumption that TOB's is fraudulent. I disagree with that faith based belief.

He still hasn't shown his dataset or calculations, so we are still working in the dark.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 April 2013 - 06:59 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#14    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,829 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:26 AM

The premise that Steve goddard is working from is that the raw data is always better. This is despite the fact that there are known biases inherent in the raw data.
The assumption is that there is a deliberate intent to introduce a warming bias, and that the corrections are "fixed" to follow that need for a warming bias.

TOB's is a fake according to Steve Goddard. Shames that it has been shown to be significant by as much as 2F in extreme cases.

This also assumes that the Berkley Earth project was "got to" since it has confirmed the surface temperature record and reported a surface rise in temperature of 1.5C over the last 250 years.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 April 2013 - 08:29 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#15    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 18 April 2013 - 08:54 AM

"His argument is based on the assumption that TOB's is fraudulent. I disagree with that faith based belief."
Your argument is based on the assumption and faith based belief that Goddard's argument is fraudulent.

the final graph shows a greater warming than can be accounted for by the Time of Observation Bias adjustment.
Posted Image
http://stevengoddard...g-at-ushcngiss/

"He still hasn't shown his dataset or calculations, so we are still working in the dark."
until you clarify, the rest of us will be scratching our heads wondering why you didn't read the label on the graph.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users