Oh my! They'll be planting palm trees in Moscow. For Steve and co., this must feel like their paradigm is shifting without a clutch.
Update:
Just because S. Mosher and some of the climate accountancy boyz have tried to call me on this. The cool bias:
1) causes the warming trend during the first part of the century to be understated.
2) causes the cooling trend mid-century to be overstated.
3) causes the warming trend between 1975 and 1987 or so (when the bias comes to an end) to be understated.
It is only when you look from the beginning of the series to the warming from 1987 or so on that the bias seems to cause the warming to appear overstated.
So Nyah nyah freaking nyah.
30 comments:
Actually, the good thing is that you have some other people involved in the data analysis. Steve has a very bad habit of mushing together two variable changes at the same time in experiments (not doing OFAT or full factorial analysis), of not doing controls, of not quantifying the magnitude of errors that he finds, of dwelling on aenecdotes or isolated issues, areas, stations. Of wandering explications. Other people are coming in and doing things in the common sense science manner that N-G advised. Watts, of course, is a lightweight. And the cheering section are mostly not critical thinkers.
Bugger off, TCO
Steve is whining about a Juckes paper that he hasn't even SEEN!? (the published, revised version). And he complains that others distract him? It's his choice to play on a blog rather than writing papers. It's his choice that he still hasn't provided code for his RE estimation procedure.
Great post BCL! Best laugh I've had in a while. Do you even remotely understand what you're writing about? Please, go spread your brillant insights far and wide on the internet. You're a great spokesman.
what a crank.
what a crock
Another Anon said:
"In case you really are that stupid, a downward temperature bias in the past serves to artificially inflate the apparent warming trend."
Not when "the past" includes the years 1975-1991 my dear.
TCO...when was the last time you got laid?
"In case you really are that stupid, a downward temperature bias in the past serves to artificially inflate the apparent warming trend."
...ah...scienti-licious! Hey, perfesser...what's your take on quantum mechanics?
You have just earned the Emily LaTella award. Now just say never mind and move along.
Let me know when the Vikings move back to Greenland!!!
I am working on a "Computer Model" to bankrupt Vegas . . . think I'll get Hansen to help, the don't think much of him at NASA anymore.
By the way, Algore and Suzuki are in Vancouver tonite pushing their GW schtik, understand they will have a booth selling carbon credits. These guys are the "Cheech and Chong" of the new millenieum.
Gorbull Warming is scarey, evidently Al is still pushing his warmest years (now known to be in the 30's) and his polar bear demise (of course the population has trippled since the 70's).
These clowns refuse to debate with REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS. A failed politician and the lifelong student Suz.
BCL, looks like you jumped to conclusions again. John Goetz wrote that post, not Steve McIntyre. See the name under the post title on CA.
John Goetz is one of our surfacestations.org volunteers, but has a knack for statistical analysis in addition to being the second most contributing surveyor.
...rah wah rah gaw...Goracle...rah wah...
The image you have posted is one I created after running an analysis against all Russian GHCN weather records. Generally speaking I do not mind people using the images so long as it is 1) attributed correctly and 2) not misrepresented.
What the image shows is the average amount (in degrees C) added each year to station records as a result of applying the "bias method" (as documented in HL87) when combining individual station records to form a single, longer record.
Here is a simple example. I have two records from East Podunk. One record is from 1889 to 1990, and the other is from 1987 to 2007. Rather than averaging the period of overlap, HL87 adds a fixed value to each month of the earlier record and then averages the period of overlap. My plot simply shows the amount of bias that is added across the record.
Because almost all of the numbers are negative, the result is that earlier records are "cooled" before they are averaged in with the later records.
You are free to interpret the implications on your own. But in the meantime, please change the attribution (or remove the image) and kindly update your blog entry to not mis-represent what the image shows.
BCL writes: "...actually introduces an artificial cooling to records before 1987."
The effect of which, when looking at TRENDS (and as we know the trend is more important) it causes an artificial positive slope in the trend over time, because the past was artificially cooled due to incorrectly applied math in the record merging.
Were I a BCL, I would be worried that the data analysis of Hansen et al might not stand up to careful scrutiny. Now you and RCers can make fun of 'amateurs' at CA; eventually, however, a second look at the data and the techniques employed will be made by the academic community. I do not know how it will turn out, but I would not be too sure one way or the other.
Actually, Anthony, the bias (as far as I can tell) makes the cooling evident from 1940 to 1970 look less severe than previously thought, and the warming from 1975 to the point where the cooling bias ends (1987 or so) more severe than previously thought.
So you lose twice.
Sure you could interpret it that way for a period, but I'm talking about a trend line for the entire time series.
Look at the 1987 pivot point. If you add negative numbers prior to 1987, and positive numbers after 1987 you get a trend line that tilts further downward prior to 1987 that it normally would have. That then affects the calculated trend number (slope) in degrees per century.
While it may be that way for you, this research is not about "winning or losing", its about getting the mathematically correct answer from data and evaluating measurement environs to determine the data quality we have to start with.
So far, there continues to be more data processing errors discovered, and I thank you for helping demonstrate that by making corrections on your blog.
Looking at the numerical average of bias is in adequate as the factor of geographic coverage is not accounted for. This is a very, very common failing of the "in-process" examinations (which the hoi palloi huff and puff about in indignation). Reminds me of how Steve confounded Mannian off-center PCA effect with standard deviation dividing (correlation matrices). It is obviously incorrect to vary two factors at once and make a judgement about one of them. And it is often done (by deniers, but I'm not accusing Goetz) in a manner that overdramatizes the effect of an embarresing (but numerically minor) error such as the Mannian off-centering. I guess it's also similar to how Steve and Ross misleadingly discuss impact on PC1 rather than "on the hockey stick". And the hoi polloi, brew crew, cheering squad idiots who ought to be calibrated by M1-Garand blows to the head, just eat it all up in moronic righteous indignation.
Jesus, TCO, you must have been sober when you wrote that.
Just got back from working out. I'm watching gymnastics on you tube.
It had a veiled assualt comment, so it wasn't that sober sounding. Ever bash a drill peice against something? Gread for breaking combination locks. Except sometimes the cleaning kit falls out.
for th Anon one . . .
Do you realise how insignificant the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is???
Well here is a comment from a real scientist, with numbers, so get out your pencil.
New Zealand professor Augie Auer explained that three-quarters of the planet is ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is governed by water vapour.
"Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.
"So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.115 percent ... that's like .12 cents in $100. It's minuscule ... it's nothing.
"So if that's the driving science, why do we need to be all concerned about CO2 and why do we need Kyoto and why do we need all the consequences from it?"
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. Marcus Aurelius
"TRENDS (and as we know the trend is more important) it .."
Holy shit; the TRENDS are important!!!
Does 'vernon' know that?
"Well here is a comment from a real scientist, with numbers, so get out your pencil."
You can not learn science from Bob Carter or his kind of people. They don't use science, they abuse it.
I will not use my time debunking your nonsense, but give you two links, you can read:
About water vapor
About man-made vs. natural CO2 emissions
As far as I believe, you will not try seriously to understand the science, so ... arrrrgh. It's useless discussing with creationists.
But you should really try to read it.
According to the lads at CA, Hansen's methodology, when applied to the Russian weather stations, actually introduces an artificial cooling to records before 1987.
You have time to post comments but not time to realize you are 180 degrees off. What an idiot! I guess if you just ignore it, it's true.
Anytime BCL attempts to post something intelligent about GW, he falls down flat on his face. Same thing this time.
Paul S
Actually, Anthony, the bias (as far as I can tell) makes the cooling evident from 1940 to 1970 look less severe than previously thought
Howso? Based on the graphic, the bias cools the temps from 1940-1970 more than the pre-1940 temps. So it makes the "cooling evident from 1940 to 1970" look more severe, not less severe. And the more severe that cooling is relative to late-20th century temps, the more the late 20th century trend is upward - which is what the AGW folks like to emphasize.
and the warming from 1975 to the point where the cooling bias ends (1987 or so) more severe than previously thought.
Actually, as the chart shows, the bias from 1975-1987 is pretty consistent. The effect of the bias being applied on the 1975-1987 trend would seem marginal at first glance.
Of course, I don't see many people ever talking about how severe the temperature change from 1975-1987 was. Most of the talk seems to be about the warming from about 1990 onward, and the chart clearly shows these years are treated substantially differently than previous ones.
Nevr mind OLDSCHOOL, his frontal lobes are shrinking with age and he's losing his ability to supress irrational beliefs and yes unfortunately the side effect is being a denier to anything he doesn't understand (including possibly why water flows down hill) and bigotry.
Hahaha, that's fucking hilarious. Do you think Steve's going to ban you anytime soon? Don't you have somewhere better to advertise, like the loose change forums or somewhere? You should be able to get some great argumentive tips on BlameBush.
Btw, I hope your site stats don't go up when I 'visit' through the google cache. Wouldn't want you to think real people think you have something worth reading.
So you mean that Russia have a big participation in global warming?
Maria[men's suits]
Post a Comment