More Global Warmist lying sacks of shit Pt. II

[Hermit]

If you looked at the graph you might have noticed that the homogenised figures have been moved downwards.

[mistermack]

If you looked at the graph you might have noticed that the homogenised figures have been moved downwards.

Oh, yeh, you're right they have. I thought they were talking about homogenising modern figures, not historic ones.

If they feel free to tamper with historic data, it brings the whole concept of warming into question.
If we don't have reliable and accurate historical data, you can hardly claim that you have accurately detected warming.

Of course, the last 20 years has seen accurate reliable measurement.
And funnily enough, no warming has been measured.

Strange, that.

[Hermit]

If they feel free to tamper with historic data, it brings the whole concept of warming into question.
If we don't have reliable and accurate historical data, you can hardly claim that you have accurately detected warming.

There's nothing wrong with making adjustments to raw data for various reasons as long as they are valid, transparent and capable of being publicly scrutinised. Not all of them are, though. Around 2009 Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit denied access to primary data to some global climate change sceptics on the ground that they'll just misuse them,and anyway, many of them are available elsewhere. He also said that the CRU was forced to actually delete swaths of raw data somewhere in the 1980s due to lack of space, leaving behind only the adjusted data they were based on. Can you believe it? Neither can I. The deletions actually occurred in the mid 1990s and obviously had nothing to do with lack of space. I also cannot believe how any honest scientist would delete raw data, which cannot be reproduced, in order to save data that are derived from them, which can.

Never mind. Let's just wait for the next tanty by Macdoc. Should be good for another laugh. Oh, what will he say now? Tell me to fuck off again? Call me a sanctimonious prick? Tell me that I'm "NOT a climate scietist (sic)" which I never claimed I was, but the lack of his own qualifications never stopped him from copypasting huge swaths of climate scientists' and assorted pundits' works? Stuff that includes statistics and graphs even though he is not a statistician himself? I tremble with fearful anticipation. No, wait. I shake with laughter.

[macdoc]

Now that you thoroughly understand why homogenizing is done you can then understand the reason for it in this case on this single station...

Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Adjusting Amberley - as it must be

In my last post, I commented briefly on a kerfuffle about adjustments at Amberley. An issue was being made, at WUWT and elsewhere, of the fact that the minimum had been adjusted so that a small cooling trend turned into quite a large warming trend. This made it into the Australian, and the BOM was prressed for an explanation. They pointed out, as I noted there, that there was a large change in 1980, with no associated metadata, which was presumably due to a move within the site.

Now WUWT, following JoNova, is pouring scorn on BoM, saying basically that they are making it up, since they don't have a record. But there is a very good reason why they don't have a record. It wasn't then a BoM site. It was Air Force, and they get the records from them. And the RAAF has its own priorities.

However, the need for the change, and the amount, is obvious if you just look at neighboring stations, and the BoM program did. I'll show this below the jump.

BoM has all the unadjusted data you need, starting on this page. Ask for the kind of data (monthly, mean min etc), with Amberley in the matching towns. Under Nearest Bureau stations, unset the "only show open" button, and it gives the nearest stations with that data. I want stations with data from 1975 to 1985; enough to see what is happening around 1980. The nearest with this data are Ipswich, Samford and Brisbane. I didn't include Mt Glorious because it is on a mountain top; the others are pretty much on the level.

I then subtracted the monthly means for that decade, to remove seasonality. So here is the graph:

more
http://www.moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/0 ... st-be.html

Now you can slink back to your conspiracy bunker ....no meat on that bone.

As I suggested you do ....but apparently too scared to .....I simply asked Gavin about it.
You want to go toe to toe with climate scientists....which neither of your purported heroes are..both being shills for right wing denidiocy.....then join the conversation.
Of course it helps if you know a little of what you are talking about.

Being dealt with already:

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/08/weat ... -wuwt.html
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/ad ... times.html

same old, same old...

gavin


==========

Gavin Schmidt
Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 212 678 5627
Email: Gavin.A.Schmidt@nasa.gov
URL: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/gschmidt.html

[Tero]

A single weather station was "wrong.* Denialist conclusion: all weather stations on the planet are wrong.

[theropod]

Nearly every glacier on the planet is shrinking, and some are almost gone. I wonder what the reason for that might be?

RS

[Seth]

Nearly every glacier on the planet is shrinking, and some are almost gone. I wonder what the reason for that might be?

RS

The end of the little ice age perhaps? We don't need glaciers, most of the planet's time in existence has been without glaciers. All it means is that we are moving away from a non-survivable ice age towards an eminently survivable interglacial period, just exactly like it's done before.

Adapt or die.

[Tero]

Glaciers must adapt!

[Hermit]

Nearly every glacier on the planet is shrinking, and some are almost gone. I wonder what the reason for that might be?

Global warming. No doubt about it. Macdoc may think I am a global warming denier. I am not. This does not stop me from being disgusted by falsification of data in the name of homogenisation, and even more so the despicable things global warming warriors like Professor Phil Jones get up to.

[Tero]

If you looked at the graph you might have noticed that the homogenised figures have been moved downwards.

Oh, yeh, you're right they have. I thought they were talking about homogenising modern figures, not historic ones.

If they feel free to tamper with historic data, it brings the whole concept of warming into question.
If we don't have reliable and accurate historical data, you can hardly claim that you have accurately detected warming.

Of course, the last 20 years has seen accurate reliable measurement.
And funnily enough, no warming has been measured.



Strange, that.

We have accurately detected warming. You can throw out the old data that would need some adjustments to fit related area data. You still get warming.

It's like the proxy data. You can use it or leave it out. The data we have shows warming for 100 years, with some variation due to solar and el nino effects. Also a few volcanoes. Its ALL measurable. The Giss concept may confuse the general public. Even the global average does.

Warming in 2014 is already past the do called pause.

[Tero]

Had a bit of a start for one of my Kari stories: global warming useless to London teen Rebecca: it does not tell her if she needs a sweater tomorrow.

[Tero]

Done
http://karireport.blogspot.com/2014/08/ ... eless.html

[piscator]

not worth even commenting on. Anyone in denial of AGW these days is a lunatic.

I expected a bit better than a cavalier wave of the hand. Dismissing AGW deniers as mere lunatics is not as convincing as explaining why the homogenised temperature graph representing measurements taken at Amberley is more realistic than the graph representing the raw data.



Have a go at it. I am genuinely interested.

That horrendous graphic is a representation of Marohasy's claims, not any sort of established fact. I'm an asshole for even quoting it, it's so fucked up...

[Hermit]

not worth even commenting on. Anyone in denial of AGW these days is a lunatic.

I expected a bit better than a cavalier wave of the hand. Dismissing AGW deniers as mere lunatics is not as convincing as explaining why the homogenised temperature graph representing measurements taken at Amberley is more realistic than the graph representing the raw data.



Have a go at it. I am genuinely interested.

That horrendous graphic is a representation of Marohasy's claims, not any sort of established fact. I'm an asshole for even quoting it, it's so fucked up...

Orly? I followed up on the links Macdoc provided. Not even the people who dispute Marohasy's claims say the graph is just a representation of hers.

[macdoc]

anymore lunatic questions..??

What are the chances the world could clock up 353 consecutive months with average temperatures higher than the norm of the 20th century without humans being responsible?
CSIRO's now-defunct climate adaptation flagship crunched the numbers and found the chances were less than one in 100,000.
In other words, there's a 99.999 per cent certainty that human activities – from burning fossil fuels to land-clearing – are responsible for the warming conditions.
"Everyone since February 1985 has lived in a warm world," said Mark Howden, a CSIRO chief research scientist and author of the peer-reviewed report published on Thursday in the Climate Risk Management journal. "In my view, that's pretty extraordinary."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... z3CMoHd9uM

ANY discussion now needs revolve around best method of dealing with the consequences and preventing it from getting worse.