It also appears that Goddard's analysis has methodological errors. There's a good explanation of that here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how... However, this does not invalidate the thought that there are still serious issues with the adjustments to the raw data.
Knocking Goddard and Watts and whoever else you choose is just a strawman. There are real problems. What exactly they are, well it would be nice to find out. It appears some here don't want that at all. I.e. the true deniers like Gary F and Gringo who try to sound smart and are usually insulting but what it all boils down to is an appeal to authority. They have no idea how this all works either. They just trust that NOAA has it right.
_____________________________________
Edit: Here is a good summary of this issue: http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/...
Maybe this comment of Upton Sinclair's applies:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
I am in favour of keeping the raw data at all costs. You can do what you like to a copy of the raw data after that. Your official published data need not be the raw data but the raw data should still be available to anyone who wants to see it.
Financial transactions achieve the same result by logging all the changes to the original posting to maintain an audit trail.
I understand that corrections may be necessary to make sense of the data but that is no excuse for changing the original. It just might be that years of adjustments could have been based on faulty logic or poorly understood science or a thousand other things that turn out to be not the case. If only the corrected data set is available and the individual changes were not recorded then the faulty adjustments cannot ever be corrected.
I know climate scientists like to think they have a lot of data but they don't really. Take YouTube as an example. According to this link, 100 hours of video are uploaded each minute: https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/en-GB/s...
Here are some more big data users: http://wikibon.org/blog/big-data-statist...
Wouldn't it be great if your statement Watts attributed to NCDC had more of an explanation? Oh wait it does.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/01/nc...
It says the statement was made to politifact and responded to him personally but the only way he got it was by asking around... Okay then. But when I search politifact for it it does not appear and there is no link from Watts site to the statement. Regardless, I will trust that it was said though.
That being said, because you are reading more into the statement than was stated and coming to the conclusion that it is nefarious makes you a conspiracy nut. Something that is far too prevalent in this category and on this topic. How is someone suppose to talk sense into a conspiracy nut?
>>Update : Lin Lyons. As far as I am concerned NOAA has lost all credibility, when shown the problems, they can only reply "our algorithms are working as designed" hmm what does that mean, designed to do what? 'mislead'<<
NOAA has no credibility based on what - other that your predetermined assumption that it never had any? NOAA's credibility is fine.
>>"our algorithms are working as designed" hmm what does that mean, designed to do what? 'mislead'<<
It means there is nothing wrong with them. And, since you do not understand them - or any scientific methods and techniques - your questioning of them is nothing but an uninformed political attack.
If there is an issue with any algorithm - why don't you tell us what is mathematically wrong with them or provide evidence that, although mathematically sound, they are being used in a way inconsistent with their purpose,
You are clueless about how things work and it is obvious you think that scientists just download the data from NOAA and run their analyses. Every scientist who uses data from any repository always checks and tests it themselves - and many will rebuild everything from scratch (multiple times) just so they can trust their confidence in the data.
I always went so far as to run all of my analyses on multiple computer platforms using different mathematical programs and algorithms just to be sure that those things were not causing differences in my results. And after I was done, I would start over from the very beginning and rebuilt, retest, and reanalyze everything until I was certain that every output of every step in the process was the same - and would always be the same - so if anyone ever, for all time, decided to test and verify my work, they would get exactly the same results.
In 1999, James Hansen wrote that the US has been cooling over the last 50 years. Just like the Medieval Warm Period, they wanted to get rid of the Dust Bowl.
There's no sense in trying to "make sense" to the senseless.
I watched an interview with Bill Ayers last night (7/2/2014) and listened as he admitted to killing other people in an effort to stop the Government from killing others during the Viet Nam Era. He is now a teacher at the University of Illinois. His wife, Bernadine Dorn, spent 20 years in prison for terrorist acts against humanity and is now a teacher at Northwestern University. They both stand by their actions even though they both killed innocent people. Neither of them think they did anything wrong.
The same is true in scientific manipulation. As long as they get the "attention" they are seeking, it doesn't matter what the truth is.
The point in bringing this up is to show how our Government doesn't really care about the truth nor does it worry about who is teaching in our education system.
These "Climate Clowns" here at Y/A are the same "Climate Clowns" they have always been. The list is very short (less than 15). Having "proof" of manipulating data in order to show a different result means nothing to them. That's just another reason why using anomalies as a basis to show "warming" and leaving it in the hands of dishonest scientists (humans) is ignorant.
------------------------------------
Calculating an average temperature is a statistic. There's nothing "actual" about it. Using it as a basis to show factual temperature is ignoring the fact that temperatures move very quickly. There are too many variables to accurately measure global average temperature. It's an act of futility to start with. It is totally inaccurate at depicting temperature. We only know that it is a "best guess" by science. This has been clearly stated by NASA and nothing has changed over the years.
---------------------------------------...
LOL Gringo! Straight from your 1st link : " ... When data is missing or incorrect it can be replaced, using a calculated estimate based on surrounding temperatures as recorded. It's not simply an average either. Raw data could be missing altogether. ... "
The simple fact that it takes an average of thousands of measurements to come to one temperature data point is why anomalies don't work. You can blow smoke up anyone's backside with the way temperature anomalies are derived. It's simply an inaccurate way to show global average temperature. When you understand how important "being accurate" in depicting temperature when it comes to climate modeling, then you might eventually come up with a model that somewhat resembles a true description.
I am not sure how people can even read those blogs ... irrelevant if you agree with their logic or not. They are so poorly written, and couldn't make a point if their lives depended on it. The need to work on their structure and delivery as both are extremely poor and makes reading those sites near on impossible to actually reach any conclusion.
The seem to want to just cram stuff down your throat with little to no thought of actually educating people. They really need to work on their delivery, as a clear, concise and structured format will present a lot better, and actually mean that their point is obvious (even if that is to cram their agenda down our throats).
Can you perhaps provide a link to an article that is written in plain English and makes sense?
<< Watts and Paul Homewood are under great scrutiny, everbody wants to prove them wrong, so they are very careful what they print..>>
LMAO
Watts is proven wrong day in day out by at least half a dozen of WUWT critical sites. Here's a few dealing with Watts'/Homewood's NOAA conspiracy:
- http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/noaa-...
- http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/inf...
- http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/06/denie...
When all you ever read are science denier sites (as listed by yourself the other day) then it is no big surprise that you are getting a totally wrong impression about the validity of their claims. And as Sou at Hotwhopper frequently points out with her analyses of comments on WUWT articles, the moment a true skeptic does point to a flaw/error/fabrication in anything posted by Watts or his co-authors, this is rarely addressed by Watt's; instead, the commenter usually gets a public lynching by the not-so-skeptic WUWT fans, gets his comment deleted or, worse, is banned.
They have a belief system. They protect that belief system the same way religious people protect theirs. They grasp at evidence that supports it and deny that which threatens it. When you have your fingers in your ears and you are screaming la la la la la la la, it is hard to understand much of anything.
What deniers don't seem to understand is that, when your best sources are wattsupwiththat and notalotofpeopleknowthat, your credibility is as fleeting as a soap bubble.
If there's any truth to what you're posting, maybe you want to find a source that has some credibility. If you can't, maybe what you're selling is snake oil.
Edit: "Update : Lin Lyons. As far as I am concerned NOAA has lost all credibility"
And you put your trust in wattsupwiththat and notalotofpeopleknowthat?
Hey, you probably want to include some quotes for junkscience as well.
The fact that July 1936 was warmer means nothing to us, what was at issue was that infilling and estimating was up to almost 40%, with even stations that had ligitimate results were being estimated, and one site that was removed in 2007 was still being estimated, plus past historical temperatures were being altered.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/more-than-40-of-ushcn-station-data-is-fabricated/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/07/01/temperature-adjustments-in-alabama-2/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/kansas-temperature-trends/
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/luling-keeps-changing/
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/marysvilleca_ushcn_site_small.jpg?w=640
