-----------------------
Isn't it ridiculous how these greenies defend corrupted data? Any true scientist will know that if your instrumentation has no integrity then your data and final decisions have no integrity.
Today we successfully manufacture millions of pieces of products based on accurate and reliable instrumentation on processes clearly more complex than mere temperature taking. Temperature instrumentation is child's play in comparison to other processes. For all the money we spend on AGW and CC, you would at least think that an honest scientist would put reliable equipment out there. It certainly is technically possible. Apparently they are out buying old Russian WWII technology and feeding this kind of garbage to the politicians and judges.
This is hypocrisy in its highest form. It is also stupidity in its highest (Or lowest) form.
No scientist with even a grade school education would rely on such silly data. Those that do just prove their worth.
I am glad that WUWT has the integrity to man up. I wish James Hansen would have the same.
I rarely look at Watts' site but I did follow Kano's link to see what the fuss is about.
Watts links to Judith Curry who is a sceptic and she links to Politifact who try to find the truth behind contentious issues. I don't know how good they are.
Politifact link to Zeke Hausfather of whom they say "Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from Washington and international bodies".
On their about page they say: "Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012."
Zeke Hausfather did an analysis of Goddard's claims and finds them to be flawed as he removes the spatial corrections needed to get the data which best represents the reality. Goddard's non-expert simplistic analysis creates the problem he's complaining about! You can download and run his code, make the same mistakes he did and believe you're better than real, professional scientists!
So, odd as it seems to say this, I find myself siding 'with' Watts! Not that he's right, just in this instance, less wrong.
Judith Curry: http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skepti...
Politifact: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/sta...
Berekeley Earth: http://berkeleyearth.org/about
Zeke Hausfather: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how...
Gotta love those anomalies!!! Not only are they not reflective of "actual" temperature movement, they are also "cooked".
linlyons - No matter which way they are "cooked" or "cooled", it simply takes away from the simple definition of what an "anomaly" stands for. "Statistics" (anomalies) are based on "actual" numbers and when these numbers are skewed in either direction, it "negates" the whole process. Haven't you ever wondered how anomalies fluctuate from month to month? Does the Earth "have" an "actual" median temperature? The anomalies do not reflect that. Temperature wouldn't fluctuate so much if science could measure it. They are simply wrong at defining Earth's actual "surface" temperature and now it seems they don't even show actual "surface" temperature fluctuations. How many more examples do you need when it comes to showing how difficult it is to "sample" Earth's temperature and accurately describe it? NASA has been stating this for many years.
Where are the temperature anomalies for 30 feet above where the actual temperature readings for the actual anomalies? 60 feet? 100 feet? 150 feet? "Environmental Climate Science" doesn't know anything about Earth's actual temperature. They assume and manipulate a lot of data to suit their own indulgence.
Gary F - Fudging isn't the point. Being totally wrong is the point. Using anomalies is a fictitious science to start with. It goes right along with the science of "carbon dating" (of which there is no exact science). Everything in science is based on assumptions. Including "Global Warming".
The “fudging” accusation is nothing but political hyperbole and another example of how dangerous scientific illiteracy can be.
If the accusation is correct that values were estimated unnecessarily, that is inexcusably careless and will no doubt result in an even greater delay before responsible action dealing with AGW is undertaken - although any actual error would be scientifically insignificant.
According to the article:
>>And as Zeke did a cursory analysis Thursday night, he discovered it was systemic to the entire record, and up to 10% of stations have “estimated” data spanning over a century<<
If we take this as more-or-less accurate, it means that the infilling did the least possible amount of damage and will result in no perceptible change. In fact, I doubt there would even be a measurable difference except possibly a trivial reduction in variance. If most or all of the estimated values were from one or a few critical regions, the results could be more problematic; although; even then, since the relative number of records involved is small and the infilled values were estimates from surrounding stations, any error introduced would drowned-out by the collective patterns in the summed data.
======
kano ---
>>Gary F. ahh yes but then they announced May was a record by 0.02C is that an extremely accurate estimation?<<
Since you will get the same (two-decimal) mean global temperature whether you use the original or allegedly estimated values - the "accuracy" is the same.
Maybe more to the point, estimating values in the manner described will bias the results toward getting fewer record high (and record low) temperatures that you would otherwise expect because an estimated temperature record can never be higher or lower than the records used to estimate it.
Gary F. ahh yes but then they announced May was a record by 0.02C is that an extremely accurate estimation?
Having stations that are "stuck" is NOT cooking the data.
That does indicate that the reported data needs to be edited.
Which, I'm sure that AGW deniers will scream to high heaven about.
One might also point out that those stations are just as likely to be reporting lower, rather than higher, actual temperatures, so we really don't know what effect this will have.
In addition, I think that there is satellite temperature data that is independent, and the fact that the satellite data has not been significantly different than the station data probably indicates that, while the data should be scrubbed, one should not expect to see a significant change in the results.
They have been cooking the numbers for years
StevenGoddard has been making wattupwiththat look respectable. We can't have anyone out denying wattsupwiththat because that is watt we call embarassing.
As soon as pigs fly.
in an ongoing dispute Goddard claims 40% of NOAA temperatures have been fabricated, he has been poo poohed and ridiculed by all, but now it looks like he was right.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
