Steve McIntyre found an error in the GISS temperature data for the US. The GISTEMP page says:

USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)

How much difference did the adjustment make to the US temperature series? Well, it changed this:

i-4c2bced67bf8018e653c78a3f2fd4553-gissusold.png

to this:

i-2c65826a3e6c732f35375023de42ebd2-gissusnew.png

Not much difference. The right hand end of the red curve has moved down a little bit, but this decade is still the warmest ever recorded in the US. The change to the global temperature series is imperceptible.

Of course, if you’re Steve McIntyre, you want to make this seem like a big deal. So what do you do?

Well, it’s hard to see from the graph, but 1998 went from being 0.01 degrees warmer than 1934 in the US, to being 0.02 degrees cooler, so he was able to present this as OMG! 1998 NO LONGER THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOW IT’S 1934. Right wing blogs started foaming at their mouths. Examples:

Noel Sheppard

it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation.

Ace

Fire [James Hansen]. Immediately.

The Ace (This is a different person from “Ace” — I think we should pop “Ace” and “The Ace” into Thunderdome.)

leftist hero James Hansen is behind this deliberate fraud. He should be frog-marched out of his office.

Rush Limbaugh:

And the bottom line is, that 1998 is no longer — you can say NASA made a reporting error or did they make a reporting error? Did they do this on purpose? How long have they known that it was erroneous and haven’t corrected it? But the bottom line of this is that 1998 is no longer the hottest year on record. … Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn’t correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record.

I’ll let Nexus explain this one for Mr Limbaugh.

Also busy exaggerating is good old Roger Pielke Sr:

The hard work of of Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit) and Anthony Watts (www.surfacestations.org) has resulted in the identification of a significant error in the assessment of the rankings of what have been the warmest years in the United States as identified by GISS. The current warmest year is 1934.

1998 and 1934 went from being in a virtual tie, to being in a virtual tie. This is not a significant change. You would have hoped that Pielke Sr would have been aware of this, but I guess not.

Oh, and I didn’t link to Climate Audit, because It’s gone down because of all the traffic from Limbaugh and the like. The paranoids there reckon it’s a DOS attack from the eevil warmers.

Update: More from RealClimate.

Comments

  1. #1 dhogaza
    August 23, 2007

    On RC is was all, station siting does not matter, the process will catch and correct any errors.

    No. That statement’s simply false. The argument is, and has been, that the data can be cleaned up to make it good enough for what it’s used for. The recent correction didn’t change the trend. Y’all are squawking about a 0.03C change in the temp difference computed for 1998 and 1934, in a world where NASA/GISS states that anything less than 0.1C is too small to be significant.

    The fact that GISS had a major error that lasted for years without being caught puts that argument to rest.

    How does a statistically insignificant error qualify as “major”? By definition … it’s insignificant.

  2. #2 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    No dhogaza, what I am ‘squawking’ about is the fact that the Hansen, who came up with the UHI off-set which GISS uses used station data where the actual temperatures do matter.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    The whole point, which Gavin tried to give misdirection to, was that what surfacestations.org does matter because it is showing two things:

    1. The many stations are not following the siting guidelines/standards

    2. That there is no proof that Hansen’s lights=0 is valid if the stations are not sited properly.

    Hansen says he depends on the stations giving accurate data There is no way to know if the UHI is correct or not if the stations in the network do not meet the network standards.

    There is no way these errors can be detected or corrected!Which means that until the work is redone with some form of quality assurance, any model using Hansen’s UHI off-set is in question.

    You say that just being off by 1/3 off the stated amount of global warming in the 20th century within the USA is not significant? I say if they cannot detect an error that size, there is no evidence that they can detect error and over come errors.

  3. #3 sod
    August 23, 2007

    Hansen says he depends on the stations giving accurate data There is no way to know if the UHI is correct or not if the stations in the network do not meet the network standards.

    let s for a moment assume, that a significant number of those stations are “tainted”.

    let s assume as well, that all of this influence is leading to them showing higher temperature.

    you do realise, that even in this case, the “INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE” would show as one sharp increase, when the change is made?

  4. #4 dhogaza
    August 23, 2007

    Perhaps now Vernon, who clearly knows more about this than all of the thousands of climate scientists in the world, will give a cogent reason as to how these siting errors cause the satellite data to be equally inaccurate, since they correlate well with the surface temp record?

    Regarding Gavin’s “misdirection”, who do I, a poor, ignorant internet surfer, trust? A credentialed scientist, or a random Vernon on the ‘net who has a proven track record of stating that “paper A says X” when a quick reading of said paper clearly indicates you’ve (must be polite … must be polite) not understood it?

  5. #5 dhogaza
    August 23, 2007

    You say that just being off by 1/3 off the stated amount of global warming in the 20th century within the USA is not significant?

    Lambert’s got before and after graphs in his post. As you can see, the jump in the 2000-2006 data does not make a significant change. It’s not significant when you eyeball the graph, and far more importantly, as you’ve been told many, many times the change is not STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

    You can wave your little weenie in the wind all you want, Vernon, this molehill is not the next Mt. Everest.

  6. #6 Vernon
    August 23, 2007

    sod, you do know what the UHI off-set is? It is applied to every ‘urban’ station every time. It is applied to every temperature reading as part of the process so it would affect all readings? Not just a one time thing.

    dhogaza, TROLL away, you always do.

    Now will someone please address the my argument and logic.

  7. #7 dhogaza
    August 24, 2007

    Now will someone please address the my argument and logic.

    People have. You continue with your flat-earthist unwillingness to learn.

  8. #8 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    dhogaza, please point out where anyone has addressed my argument? I do not see it. I see some ad hom attacks and TROLLING but no one is addressing the argument. Your it looks small on the graphic means nothing. The whole point of why surfacestations.org was a wasted effort was that the process would detect and correct errors to the point that they would have no effect. That has been shown not to be true.

    Secondly, and more importantly, the fact remains that the stations can be shown, though the work of surfacestations.org, not to comply with NOAA/NWS/WMO standards so there is no way to know the accuracy.

    Hansen says that he is depending on the accuracy of the station data in his UHI off-set work.

    Hansen assumes the data is accurate.

    Hansen (2001) cannot be held as accurate until he does the further work needed to insure that the data he is using is accurate. Which means that until this is done, any GCM’s results based on his UHI off-set is equally in doubt.

    Please point out where anyone has addressed this?

  9. #9 Dano
    August 24, 2007

    the fact remains that the stations can be shown, though the work of surfacestations.org, not to comply with NOAA/NWS/WMO standards so there is no way to know the accuracy

    And a great propaganda opportunity is being seized upon, as sfcstns.org isn’t collecting temp data, so they can claim whatever they want.

    Brilllll-yunt. Except we’ve seen it all before, so that dog don’t hunt.

    Best,

    D

  10. #10 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    Dano, your just a troll. I see that no one here will address my argument. So it must mean you know that Hansen, in good faith I would expect, does not have a scientifically valid UHI off-set.

    You solution to an identified problem is to cover your ears and just chant slogans, ie. ‘that dog don’t hunt.’

    I see Hansen’s ego will not let him admit that mistakes were made.

    It sure is ugly when faith is challenged by science.. to bad you do not do sciene.

  11. #11 Dano
    August 24, 2007

    Keep up yer blustering, son.

    Meanwhile, while Vernon bumbles along with his stale cut-pasted rhetoric, 6 western states have moved to regulate carbon emissions while his feeble attempt at delay falls on deaf-from-knowledge ears. Oh! would that The Google had a ‘wisdom’ button!

    Maybe the western Governors acted because they were briefed that surfacestations.org wouldn’t find anything that would reverse the northward/upward migrations of plants and animals, or reverse the sign of the trend of the Keeling curve, or make spring green-up later or reverse the glacial retreat or re-thaw the melting permafrost orororor.

    Best,

    D

  12. #12 Dano
    August 24, 2007

    It sure is ugly when faith is challenged by science.. to bad you do not do sciene.

    Haw.

    Digital snaps as science. Good ‘un.

    That’s the best they can do folks.

    Best,

    D

  13. #13 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    lets see, how does this go?

    Vern: presents a logical argument

    Dano: (I have no clue how to get out of this one, time for another ad hom!) Haw. Digital snaps as science. Good ‘un. That’s the best they can do folks.

    Or, basically, Dano does not have a clue on how to resolve these issues. They go against his faith, so he tosses out one liners rather than dealing with facts.

  14. #14 dhogaza
    August 24, 2007

    There’s a reason people make fun of you, Vernon …

  15. #15 Dano
    August 24, 2007

    Dano does not have a clue on how to resolve these issues

    Call us when any “issues” have been quantified and published for peer review*. Then we’ll talk about “resolving” these “issues”, whatever they might be as we don’t know because the all a-twitter amateurs aren’t measuring anything to quantify. Oh, but enough of minor details.

    Until then, carry on with your wish for delay in action using stale, cut-pasted rhetoric and a big fat wishy-wish that surfacestations.org finds something in their pictures that reverses the northward/upward migrations of plants and animals, reverses the sign of the trend of the Keeling curve, makes spring green-up later, reverses the glacial retreat, re-thaws the melting permafrost…oh, you know what I mean, Ashleigh! I could just die! I could just die! Those poor animals want to move back to our lovely South! I miss them so, Ashleigh!

    Best,

    D

    * not qualified with real purty pictures. Quantified with real quantifiable data, not speculative pixels, not vague generalizations of what might be occurring, what could be going on, gee what if. Numbers of what is going on. IOW, a post on a joke website by is not good enough.

  16. #16 Dano
    August 24, 2007

    Oh, good dhogaza! Can you make our lovely animals move back to the South? Can you? Tell me these…these…picture-takers can get us our plants and animals back! I don’t know what to do! Oh, Oh, plants! animals! Please, don’t go! You can’t leave me! Please! I’ll never forgive you!

    Best,

    D

  17. #17 Lee
    August 24, 2007

    210, Vernon says:

    “You solution to an identified problem ”

    Vernon, WHAT identified problem? The world surface record is in very close agreement with the satellite record – the temp increases are tracking between the two data sets. The US surface record was on reasonably good agreement, and now after the correction, is in VERY good agreement, with the satellite record. Two entirely, utterly, completely different methodologies are yielding exactly the same result – they are each confirming the other.

    But you, Vernon, keep blathering as if the pictures are somehow introducing a major issue. You’ve been called on that in several ways – adherence with siting standards designed to ensure comparable absolute temps has little or nothing to do with whether there is a spurious temp trend introduced. Even perfectly sited stations cant be assumed to have no spurious trend, and badly sited stations can not be assumed to have a spurious positive trend. Analytical corrections to the data identify at least some of the spurious temp changes (and only the changes over time are important) and those corrected data are in very, very close agreement with data from an entirely different data source.

    So, what precisely is the “identified problem?”

    You HAVE NOT addressed any of this, you simply keep yelling about the pictures and the minor correction.
    And when people point out many, many additional lines of evidence in support of rapidly climbing temps, things like ice loss, shifting ag zones, shifting species limits, and on and on, you still simply keep pointing at those pictures – which are UTTERLY USELESS for identifying temperature trends or spurious trends – and you continue to fail to address ANY of the lines of evidence and data being offered.

    Then you have the chutzpah to call other people trolls?

  18. #18 Dano
    August 24, 2007

    Then you have the chutzpah to call other people trolls

    It’s not chutzpah, it’s all he’s got. Give the poor guy a break, willya? His feet must be sore from all the tap-dancing Lee, so the typin’s not goin’ so good, see.

    Best,

    D

  19. #19 richard
    August 24, 2007

    “you simply keep yelling about the pictures and the minor correction. ”

    That’s because Vernon has latched onto the tobacco industry’s ‘fatal flaw’ argument wherein an error in a science article, no matter how unimportant to the data analysis in the article, is used to portray the research conclusions as ‘flawed’ and therefore not worthy of consideration. This apparently is Vernon et al’s only recourse, as they seem to be unable to develop an alternative hypothesis to explain the available data sets.

  20. #20 dhogaza
    August 24, 2007

    The US surface record was on reasonably good agreement, and now after the correction, is in VERY good agreement, with the satellite record.

    This ironic side-effect has been missed by a lot of people. The scum-sucking right-wing disinformation machine denialists have pointed to the minor disagreement between satellite and surface temp data as being More Proof That Global Warming Is A Fraud. Now they’re crowing that corrections to the US surface temp record, which brings the satellite and surface temp records into closer agreement, is Absolute Proof That Global Warming Is A Fraud.

    Comedy Central should fire its writers and just poach McIntrye and Pielke Sr’s blogs. Real life really is funnier than anything we can make up.

  21. #21 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    Odd, a lot more ad hom attacks but no one bothers to address the argument. I guess this is what happen when you use science and logic vs ignorant faith.

    The pictures only need to show whether standards are being met. They do that and what they show is that stations are not meeting the standards.

    Sorry, but you should at least read what I am saying. It is very simple, the stations do not meet standards, Hansen depends on the stations for accuracy and without that, his UHI off-set could be wrong. There is no way to tell till more work is done. The same is true of any GCM that uses his off-set.

    You should try reading what I am saying. It is quite logical and is based on Hansen work. But then dont let facts stand in your way.

    Richard,

    How is not knowing the accuracy of the UHI off-set something that could possibly fall under this ‘no matter how unimportant to the data analysis in the article’? That is per Hansen, oh wait, I get it, Hansen was wrong to say that his study depended on accurate data. And you have a cite from Hansen where he says that the quality of the data used in the study does not matter?

    Basically Richard, that is plain stupid.

    So, no one wants to address the issues: namely that there is divergence between proxy and instrumented readings and this helps explain it.

    But dont let the scientist or logic get in your way.

  22. #22 Vernon
    August 24, 2007

    Tim Lambert,

    You are suppost to be a fact checker. How about checking my facts and pointing out which ones I got wrong? No one has done that yet.

    They are quite simply:

    Hansen (2001) states quite plainly that he depends on the accuracy of the station data for the accuracy of his UHI off-set

    WMO/NOAA/NWS have siting standards

    Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards

    There is no way to determine the accuracy of the station data for stations that do not meet standards.

    Hansen uses lights=0 in his 2001 study

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in an rural environment

    At this time there is no way to determine the accuracy of Hansen’s UHI off-set

    Any GCM that uses this off-set has no way to determine the accuracy of the product being produced.

    Please Tim, tell which facts I got wrong!

  23. #23 dhogaza
    August 24, 2007

    I guess this is what happen when you use science and logic vs ignorant faith.

    No, this is what happens when you stop taking your meds…

  24. #24 sod
    August 24, 2007

    Hansen uses lights=0 in his 2001 study

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in an rural environment

    pssssst. i ll give you some BIG secret of statistical information now:

    while doing statistical science, we use INDICATORS a lot.
    in this case, the indicator of an urban station, is a satelite picture showing light around the location of the station.
    wether a single station, classified as urban with this method, in reality is urban or not, is completely IRRELEVANT.
    (wether that station fullfills weather data criteria is an completely independent issue, btw!)

    with a statistical approach, we ASSUME that the majority of those station with LIGHT are urban stations. that s how we chose the INDICATOR.
    some stations labeled urban with the method will turn out to be rather rural. some ruala stations will be pretty urban. but that is IRRELEVANT, because it will balance out, because we CHOSE a good INDICATOR.

    if i was allowed a single population stat, as a help in guessing the last vote of the conservative party in a random european state, i d ask for the percentage of catholics there and guess that number (in case it was significantly high).
    this DOES NOT mean that every catholic votes conservative, nor does it mean that votes are stabel as religion is. but it s a VERY GOOD INDICATOR!

    i m looking forward to the results of the esearch on stations. but i canpredict it with a 95% confidence value: number of stations classified wrongly as urban/rural will be INSIGNIFICANT. (after a counterbalance effect)

  25. #25 Vernon
    August 25, 2007

    sod, how does that contradict any of my facts or argument? I will give you a clue, it does not. There is no studies or anything else that shows that stations not meeting the standards provide accurate data.

    You cannot use statistics to determine whether the data is good or not, sorry, if there is nothing to compare the stations data with.

    Want to try laying out a logical argument to support your position?

  26. #26 richard
    August 25, 2007

    “Basically Richard, that is plain stupid.”

    If you are not happy with Hansen’s data or analysis, then you are certainly free to conduct your own analysis with other data (e.g. data from non US sites). If you can demonstrate trends that differ from Hansen’s and can publish that analysis in a peer-review journal, I am sure that would get people’s attention. Why can’t you do that? If you are sure Hansen is wrong, that would be the best route to take. Certainly better than calling others stupid.

    Since you and your colleagues will not do this, one can conclude that you don’t believe that you actually have a case.

  27. #27 sod
    August 25, 2007

    sod, how does that contradict any of my facts or argument?

    YES. i refuted this argument that you made above:

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in an rural environment

    that statement of yours is mangling two arguments into one, both are false, of course:

    1. lights =0 does not make the station rural

    2. some sites don t meet (meterolocical) siting standards.

    you mix up these COMPLETELY independent arguments. this shows some massive lack of understanding. if you manage to clarify your position in a way that makes sense, i ll comment on that.

  28. #28 oconnellc
    August 25, 2007

    sod:
    > lights =0 does not make the station rural

    You said that was false. What if the station wasn’t actually located at the spot where the lights were counted?

  29. #29 Vernon
    August 25, 2007

    sod, and lights=0 does not mean you get rural readings if the stations is sited next to asphalt, buildings, etc. That is what surfacestations.org is showing, that there is no way to tell the accuracy of the data from a station that does not meet guidelines.

  30. #30 dhogaza
    August 25, 2007

    That is what surfacestations.org is showing, that there is no way to tell the accuracy of the data from a station that does not meet guidelines.

    Of course there are ways, but taking a photograph is not one of them.

    But I don’t think you’ll ever understand.

  31. #31 Vernon
    August 25, 2007

    dhogaza, I see you still will not address the facts or my argument, but please tell us how to how to determine the accuracy of the data from a station that is not sited correctly? Remember, this is not about doing a grid and a trend, this is about taking a rural station to compare with an urban one to determine the UHI off-set.

    So, please enlighten us. How can you do something that Hansen says he cannot?

  32. #32 Lee
    August 25, 2007

    231, vernon,

    After refusing to address my points above, you offer this gem:

    “dhogaza, I see you still will not address the facts or my argument, but please tell us how to how to determine the accuracy of the data from a station that is not sited correctly?”

    vernon, I ask again – WHAT FRICKING FACTS?! WHAT FRICKING ARGUMENT?!

    I ask – The fact that some of the stations are not sited properly for METEOROLOGICAL (not climate) purposes, according to meteorological (NOT CLIMATE) standards, tells us what precisely about the trend (not temperature – temperature trend) obtained from those stations?

    The fact is, the delta-temp data from surface stations is in VERY, VERY close agreement, regionally and overall, with data determined by a completely different methodology, from the satellites, for the entire period of overlap in those two data sets. This appears to me to be a pretty damn good way to assess the accuracy of the data and analysis – see if it matches the results from independently derived data and analyses, and it does. Very very closely. As it does, qualitatively, with the other indicators of temp change that have been listed for you, pointed out to you, that have been put right fricking in front of your face, over and over and over again in this thread. And that you keep utterly refusing to even acknowledge, much less address. You keep asking why we think that data and analysis is correct, we keep telling you, and you keep pretending we haven’t done so.

    Yes, there are issues with the HISTORICAL surface station data – it is known that there are problems, and the analyses are designed to extract the best possible record from the available flawed data. We can not go back and change the stations, we can not go back and remeasure that data. We do not know whether a perfectly sited station might have a spurious trend – for reasons I’VE TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES NOW – and we do not know if a badly sites station might not have a spurious trend – for reasons I’ve told you several times now. Taking pictures of stations and crowing about those that are badly sited adds nothing whatsoever to this – the data analysis proceeds from an assumption that ANY station might have spurious trends, and seeks to correct them as far as is possible.

    What we do know is that by analyzing the DATA, looking for indicators of spurious trends and correcting them as best as possible, by using networks of contiguous stations and so on, we derive a record that is nearly identical to that derived from the satellites, over the entire period of overlap. And that is internally consistent, showing geographically and temporally cohesive patterns of changes. And that is in agreement with all the qualitative measures we have. IOW, every bit of DATA we have that is relevant to temp trends, shows that this record is pretty damn good.
    Pointing at pictures that tell us nothing more than we already knew – that some stations have problems, and we need to examine the data from every station for spurious trends – does not change one damn bit of this.

    Now, if you are serious about this discussion, you will address some of this argument, instead of pointing at the pictures and yelling about siting issues that have no known relationship to possible spurious trends – against a backdrop in which EVERY station’s data is considered from first principles to be suspect in the analysis.

    Can you do that, Vernon?

  33. #33 dhogaza
    August 25, 2007

    Can you do that, Vernon?

    No, he can’t. The same thing happened over at Real Climate.

    You’re wasting your (virtual) breath.

  34. #34 sod
    August 25, 2007

    You said that was false. What if the station wasn’t actually located at the spot where the lights were counted?

    your thesis is: “a significant number of stations classified as rural are in lights >>0 zones”

    now all you need to do is backup that claim with some data.

    sod, and lights=0 does not mean you get rural readings if the stations is sited next to asphalt, buildings, etc. That is what surfacestations.org is showing, that there is no way to tell the accuracy of the data from a station that does not meet guidelines.

    AGAIN:
    wether sites being based on “asphalt” places are classified as rural or not, has NOTHING to do with the “lights=0″ indicator! you are CONSTANTLY mixing up two completely DIFFERENT things!

    please stop doing that and try to make a cohjerent argument!

  35. #35 sod
    August 25, 2007

    the requirements for stations are due to METEREOLOGICAL reasons!
    if you want to predict the temperature tomorrow, you do NOT want your data to be compromised by asphalt around the sensor.

    but if you are looking at trends (climate, you know!!) then this is completely IRRELEVANT!
    the only problem will be the point, when the asphalt was put around the starion.

  36. #36 Vernon
    August 25, 2007

    Lee, did you bother to read Hansen (2001)? The prinicple point of your argument appears to be:

    I ask – The fact that some of the stations are not sited properly for METEOROLOGICAL (not climate) purposes, according to meteorological (NOT CLIMATE) standards, tells us what precisely about the trend (not temperature – temperature trend) obtained from those stations?

    First lets address the accuracy question. Please note that Hansen does not say any data will do but specifically accurate data from NOAA/NWS. By definition, there is no way to know the accuracy of the data from stations that do not follow the standards. What Hansen says is:

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    Further Hansen went on to specificaly say:

    One reason to be cautious about the inferred urban warming is the possibility that it could be, at least in part, an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records. Our present analysis is dependent on the validity of the temperature records and station history adjustments at the unlit stations.

    So Hansen says that the data from the ‘weather stations’ needs to be accurate for his methodology to work.

    Further, Hansen made additional assumptions:

    We are implicitly assuming that urban (local human induced) warming at the unlit stations is negligible.
    We argue that this warming can be, at most, a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over the past 100 years.

    However, site issues which surfacestations.org are bringing to light show that this is not a valid assumption. Having buildings, asphalt, concrete, and equipment closer than the ‘weather stations’ are allowed will affect the data.

    So, do you have any arguements that are not based on ‘weather station accuracy’ vs ‘climate station accuracy’?

    You do realize he is taking individual urban stations and comparing them the local rural light=0 stations to find the difference? He is not looking for the trend, but the overall difference. Then after he has the differences for the time period, he does a trend.

  37. #37 Vernon
    August 25, 2007

    sod, read my last post. Hansen in (2001) is not doing trends, he is doing the station off-sets for UHI, Time of observation, meta-data (station moves) for individual stations.

    AGAIN: wether sites being based on “asphalt” places are classified as rural or not, has NOTHING to do with the “lights=0″ indicator! you are CONSTANTLY mixing up two completely DIFFERENT things!

    I cannot help that you did not read the paper or if you did, you did not grasp what was being said. Hansen, I repeat, said:

    We are implicitly assuming that urban (local human induced) warming at the unlit stations is negligible. We argue that this warming can be, at most, a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over the past 100 years.

    Now which part of this do you not understand. Hansen expects that an light=0 station is going to have no man-made warming but what is coming to light from the census being performed at surfacestations.org is that is not true.

    Now since this is not about the trend of the stations but the actual temperatures, siting really does matter.

    READ HANSEN’s 2001 paper then argue with me.

  38. #38 dhogaza
    August 25, 2007

    READ HANSEN’s 2001 paper then argue with me.

    If you had balls, you’d argue with Hansen directly, in the peer-reviewed literature.

    After all (in your mind) your case is iron-clad … GISS data that shows global warming actually proves there is no global warming.

    Prove it. Not with photographs, not with wee-willie-wind-waving, but scientifically. With data and analysis.

    All you’ve showed us in dozens of posts at RC and here is that you are CERTAIN that the science is wrong.

    In essence, you’re telling us you’re an idiot savant, not just an idiot.

    Prove it. Give us numbers. Give us papers. Don’t give us numbers that have no statistically significant effect and say “here’s the wooden stake through the heart of science! Faith-based conservatisism works!” Find number that are statistically robust.

    And while you’re at it, answer the objections and questions people raise.

    At the moment, we’re in the position where you do some wee-willie-waving, and when someone says “here’s data showing that you’re just doing wee-willie-waving”, you respond with more wee-willie-waving.

    Of course, we all know why you don’t respond but rather repeat the same old shit again and again …

  39. #39 jay alt
    August 26, 2007

    Tim-
    If Science Blogs ever asks you about new features, my suggestion
    is an -ignore user- button to hide posts could be useful.

    J. Alt

  40. #40 oconnellc
    August 26, 2007

    sod:
    > your thesis is: “a significant number of stations classified as rural are in lights >>0 zones”

    > now all you need to do is backup that claim with some data.

    I don’t know what the statistically significant number is. If you will show me your calculations for what you consider a significant number, I’ll be happy to start trying.

  41. #41 oconnellc
    August 26, 2007

    sod, I take it back. You stated this:

    > your thesis is: “a significant number of stations classified as rural are in lights >>0 zones”

    I’m not sure that is the thesis. As I reread all of this, it seems that the thesis is:

    An unknown number of stations classified as rural are in lights >>0 zones. It is not known if this number is greater than or less than the number that would be statistically significant.

    I think it would be very edifying if the people who are arguing that the surfacestations.org people are wasting time and effort could quantify those two numbers for us. The number of stations classified as rural that are in lights >>0 zones and the number of those stations that would be considered statistically significant.

  42. #42 Lee
    August 26, 2007

    vernon said:

    “So, do you have any arguements that are not based on ‘weather station accuracy’ vs ‘climate station accuracy’?”

    Well yes, Vernon, I do. They were stated repeatedly, as in several times, in the very same post you are responding to. They have been made repeatedly throughout this thread, by myself and others. The fact that you can respond to a post in which those other arguments are stated, and pointed to as exactly the arguments you keep failing to respond to, and that you not only fail to respond to them, but act as if they havent been made, labels you nothing more than a particularly foolish troll..

  43. #43 wizofaus
    August 26, 2007

    Any comments yet on Spencer & Christy’s latest?

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029698.shtml

  44. #44 Vernon
    August 26, 2007

    Yes, yes, an ignore button would be great, and then all the facts would not get in the way of your beliefs.

    Lee, all you argue is that the data from the stations is good enough for doing climate trends. Hansen et al (2001) A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change just does not happen to be about climate change trends. It is about the station off-sets for UHI, Time of observation, meta-data (station moves) for individual stations.

    All of your arguments are about trends and change in trends such as: (highlighting added by me)

    The fact is, the delta-temp data from surface stations is in VERY, VERY close agreement, regionally and overall, with data determined by a completely different methodology, from the satellites, for the entire period of overlap in those two data sets.

    Which may or may not be true and yet still would not be some thing relevant to my argument, you have not shown that it is. Why, because Hansen is not doing trends in this paper, he is doing individual station off-sets.

    Quite simply, Lee, did you read the paper?

  45. #45 Vernon
    August 26, 2007

    dhogaza, once again you ignore the facts I presented and logic to go straight to… well nothing. If RC would actually post my stuff, I would be glad to hear them answer it but that does not happen there.

    I do not have to present anything to Hansen or in peer revewed papers. Basically, your dodging the my whole argument.

    Now if anyone wants to point out where my facts or logic is wrong, I am still waiting. This is Tim’s blog, so and he is the fact checker for everything done by an skeptic, why not get him to check my facts and logic.

  46. #46 richard
    August 26, 2007

    “I do not have to present anything to Hansen or in peer revewed papers. ”

    True, but no one is obliged to listen to you if you do not. And unless you do so, Hansen is hardly obliged to listen to you either. If you have a scientific case, make it through the peer-review process. It seems that you and your colleagues cannot do this. Why not?

  47. #47 Vernon
    August 26, 2007

    richard, so now your argument is that if I do not publish it is not valid? I guess that your conceding that my facts and logic are correct.

  48. #48 Eli Rabett
    August 26, 2007

    I believe picking on Vernon goes under the topic heading of abusing a bag of wind.

  49. #49 Vernon
    August 26, 2007

    Eli, you present yourself to be a scientist. So, nice ad hom, but how about pointing out where I am wrong?

    (I will even state it again so to make it easier for you.)

    Here are the facts and conclusions:

    Hansen (2001) states quite plainly that he depends on the accuracy of the station data for the accuracy of his UHI off-set

    WMO/NOAA/NWS have siting standards

    Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards

    There is no way to determine the accuracy of the station data for stations that do not meet standards.

    Hansen uses lights=0 in his 2001 study

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in an rural environment (as defined by Hansen, see below)

    At this time there is no way to determine the accuracy of Hansen’s UHI off-set

    Any GCM that uses this off-set has no way to determine the accuracy of the product being produced.

    Hansen says is:

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    Further Hansen went on to specificaly say:

    One reason to be cautious about the inferred urban warming is the possibility that it could be, at least in part, an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records. Our present analysis is dependent on the validity of the temperature records and station history adjustments at the unlit stations.

    So Hansen says that the data from the surface stations needs to be accurate for his methodology to work.

    Further, Hansen made additional assumptions (his definition of rural):

    We are implicitly assuming that urban (local human induced) warming at the unlit stations is negligible. We argue that this warming can be, at most, a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over the past 100 years.

    However, site issues which surfacestations.org are bringing to light show that this is not a valid assumption. Having buildings, asphalt, concrete, and equipment closer than the ‘weather stations’ are allowed will affect the data.

    So Eli, rather than calling me a ‘bag of wind’, why not simply put me in my place by showing where I am wrong?

    If you cannot, which no one else has done here, then the ‘bag of wind’ award seems to go to the pro CO2 AGW posters here.

  50. #50 z
    August 26, 2007

    Let’s get this organized.

    All those who believe there is no warming, it’s just an artifact of sloppy measurements, how about you start by arguing with those who believe that there is warming caused by the sun and those who believe that there is warming caused by lack of cosmic rays, given that you all consider yourselves to be arguing the same thing; the winner can then debate the anthropogenic global warming folks. Anyone who has been simultaneously arguing all three positions will be disqualified.

  51. #51 Eli Rabett
    August 26, 2007

    So will having nearby trees that shade the surface stations and lower the temperature, and there are a lot more of those than there are nearby a/c units.

    Of course, I was somewhat hyperbolic you are a bag of light breeze.

  52. #52 Vernon
    August 26, 2007

    RE 251: Eli, so you cannot challenge my facts or my logic so you drag in a red herring and yet another ad hom.

    Why not address my argument, facts and logic, and stop the name calling?

  53. #53 Vernon
    August 26, 2007

    What do you know, gavin at RC actually posted my argument and attempted to address it. Here it is with my response to his arguments:

    Gavin, thank you for your input and I have addressed your responses in-line. I bolded the original post.

    Here are the facts and conclusions:

    Hansen (2001) states quite plainly that he depends on the accuracy of the station data for the accuracy of his UHI off-set

    [Response: Of course. - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:

    Yeah, Gavin agreed with me.

    WMO/NOAA/NWS have siting standards

    Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards

    [Response: They have not shown that those violations are i) giving measurable differences to temperatures, or ii) they are imparting a bias (and not just random errors) into the overall dataset which is already hugely oversampling the regional anomalies. - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:

    i) They do show that the stations are not in accordance with NOAA/NWS guidelines. No one knows what this is doing to the station accuracy.

    ii) This is a red herring, it does not matter what they are doing, what matters is no one knows what this is doing to accuracy.

    iii)Oversampling does not matter, Hansen (2001) is not about trends, it is about adjustments to individual stations for UHI, TOD, and station movement.

    There is no way to determine the accuracy of the station data for stations that do not meet standards

    [Response: There is also no way to determine the accuracy of the stations that do either. Except for comparing them to other nearby stations and looking for coherence for the past, and actually doing some measurements of temperature now. - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:
    Gavin, this is another red herring. Hansen assumed the stations did meet the accuracy requirements, it can be shown this assumption is not supported.

    One reason to be cautious about the inferred urban warming is the possibility that it could be, at least in part, an artifact of inhomogeneities in the station records. Our present analysis is dependent on the validity of the temperature records and station history adjustments at the unlit stations.

    So Hansen says that the data from the surface stations needs to be accurate for his methodology to work.

    Further, Hansen made additional assumptions (his definition of rural):

    We are implicitly assuming that urban (local human induced) warming at the unlit stations is negligible. We argue that this warming can be, at most, a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over the past 100 years.

    Hansen uses lights=0 in his 2001 study

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in an rural environment

    [Response: False. You are confusing a correction for urbanisation with micro-site effect. UHI is a real problem, and without that correction the global trends would be biased high. The Hansen urban-only US trend is about 0.3 deg C/century warmer than the rural trend (which is what is used). Therefore the lights=0 technique certainly does reduce urban biases. - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:
    Gavin, I am not confusing anything. You have a nice red herring but I did not say that the currently used UHI off-set does not reduce urban biases. I said there is no way to know the accuracy of the UHI off-set. You have not disputed this, and saying your doing something that you cannot prove is right is not much better than doing nothing.

    At this time there is no way to determine the accuracy of Hansen’s UHI off-set

    [Response: The effect diminishes with the size of town, it is actually larger than corrections based on population rises, and it gives results that are regionally coherent and you have yet to show that any objective subsampling of the rural stations makes any difference. - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:
    Your response has nothing to do with my statement. You then follow up with talking about the census based UHI off-set which Hansen say specifically his methodology is better.

    Any GCM that uses this off-set has no way to determine the accuracy of the product being produced.

    [Response: GCMs don't use the surface station data. How many times does that need to be pointed out? - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:
    yet another red herring. I never claimed that you used surface station data. You use the trends, which are in part, formed by using Hansen (2001) off-sets based on the surface station data. You know the part that you will not release to the public?

    Tell which facts I got wrong!

    Oh and if you did not catch this, it means that GISS GCM is pretty worthless till they figure this out.

    [Response: GCM physics is independent of the trends in the surface data - no changes to that data will change a single line of GCM code or calculation. If you want to have a continued discussion then address the responses. Simply repeats of the same statements over and again is tiresome and pointless. - gavin]

    Vern’s Response:
    yet another red herring. Gavin, you can continue to mischaracterize what I said but it will not change the facts. The facts are that the surface station trends are used by GISS GCM as an input. There is no way with the work that Hansen has currently done in (2001) to know if the trends which use his off-sets are any good. Remember garbage in garbage out?

    So your basic response consists of conceding that the surefacestations.org census is showing that a significant number of stations, to date, are not in compliance. You offer nothing to show what the impact of being out of compliance is. You offer nothing to show that if Hansen’s assumptions are wrong, his results are still right. You offer red-herrings as to why this would affect the GISS GCM.

    Basically, you have not addressed either the facts or the logic.

  54. #54 dhogaza
    August 26, 2007

    So now Vernon’s accusing Gavin, as well as Hansen, of being a liar.

    Good luck floating that boat.

  55. #55 dhogaza
    August 26, 2007

    So despite Vernon’s claims that RC won’t let him post there, he posts. And Gavin answers him. And what does Vernon do? Rather than answer Gavin at RC, posts his answers here, where Gavin is unlikely to see them.

    Sleazy, Vernon, sleazy. BTW we all knew your claim that RC won’t let you post was bullshit.

    GCMs don’t use the surface station data. How many times does that need to be pointed out? – gavin

    and Gavin adds

    GCM physics is independent of the trends in the surface data – no changes to that data will change a single line of GCM code or calculation.

    Vernon frothily insists:

    The facts are that the surface station trends are used by GISS GCM as an input.

    Now, who is right? Gavin, who works on GCMs professionally and presumably knows how they work? Or Vernon, who has never looked at the model and doesn’t have a clue as to how they work?

  56. #56 Eli Rabett
    August 26, 2007

    Frothy bag of Vernon anyone?

  57. #57 richard
    August 26, 2007

    “richard, so now your argument is that if I do not publish it is not valid? ”

    Not at all. I am saying, as I have all along, if you want to have your hypotheses and / or data analyses considered seriously by climatologists you have to publish them in peer-reviewed climate science journals. Peer-review is one of the validating mechanisms. Are you preparing a submission? Perhaps you could post a draft.

    Unless you are willing to publish, your arguments, such as they are, will not enter into the scientific debate. Certainly, those who have published are not obliged to speak to your concerns, unless you have evidence of legal misconduct or fraud. Do you have any such evidence? If so you, should be forwarding the evidence to the superiors of the scientists in question.

  58. #58 oconnellc
    August 26, 2007

    Hmmm… This was odd:
    > Unless you are willing to publish, your arguments, such as they are, will not enter into the scientific debate. Certainly, those who have published are not obliged to speak to your concerns, unless you have evidence of legal misconduct or fraud.

    I didn’t notice that Mc actually published his claim that a mistake was made in a peer reviewed journal. I seem to recall that he just sent someone an email. Odd that this email caused corrections to be made, since it wasn’t published in any peer-reviewed journal. And I think the email just stated that an error was made, I don’t think that email accused anyone of fraud or legal misconduct.

    If you wish to state that you wont respond to any scientific claim and will only let peer-reviewed journals be your forum, that is your prerogative. But if someone else chooses to discuss the point with them in a forum like this, then it seems fair to continue to discuss the point in that forum. For example, Gavin et. al. discuss lots of scientific things on their blogs and even express their opinion about other published papers on RealClimate. They don’t even pretend that they are going to publish in a peer-reviewed paper every opinion they offer on a blog. There certainly seems to be precedent for people to offer non-peer reviewed opinions on the internet.

    By the way, Vernon, did you post your response to Gavin on RC as well as posting it here?

  59. #59 sod
    August 26, 2007

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in an rural environment (as defined by Hansen, see below)

    sorry Vernon, it is very difficult to approach your posts in a serious way, when you still can NOT see that “siting standards ” and “rural < --> urban” are two COMPLETELY different subjects!

    urban stations can violate siting standards as well as a rural station can. some pavement DOES NOT make a rural station “urban”.

    sod, and lights=0 does not mean you get rural readings if the stations is sited next to asphalt, buildings, etc. That is what surfacestations.org is showing, that there is no way to tell the accuracy of the data from a station that does not meet guidelines.

    again: that a station is placed on a paved parking side in the middle of the everglades DOES NOT make it an URBAN station.
    you might want to check a definition of “URBAN”.

    ————————-

    An unknown number of stations classified as rural are in lights >>0 zones. It is not known if this number is greater than or less than the number that would be statistically significant.

    ok, there are lots of problems with this. lets first start with what Hansen says about light “percentages”:

    These data are
    then summarized into three categories (0-8, 8-88, and 88-100%).
    (page 2)

    so rural is up to 8% and tends to have a “population
    densities of about 0.1 persons/ha or less.”

    now Hansen made a HUGE effort to factor urban heat island effects into his results
    even though there is significant dispute about wether UHI does influence climate data AT ALL. (Peterson, Parker..)

    now he s assaulted for his method of doing so, by people who:

    1. cannot show wether false siting does effect the rural station

    2. wether a significant number of stations is effected

    3. wether the net effect of false placement will change temperature upwards or downwards

  60. #60 dhogaza
    August 26, 2007

    By the way, Vernon, did you post your response to Gavin on RC as well as posting it here?

    Actually, he did. It wasn’t there when I posted above, it is now, with further responses from Gavin.

    Don’t expect Gavin to show much patience, though. Bald mistatement of fact like “I know how your model works and you don’t know how your model works” amount to a waste of time.

  61. #61 dhogaza
    August 26, 2007

    Well, as might be expected, Gavin writes, in essence, that since he’s an author of the GCM he believe he knows how it works better than Vernon does, and invites Vernon to prove his assertion by pointing out which lines of code of the GCM include surface station trend data.

    Come back after you’ve read the code, Vernon. You climate audit fanboys are always screaming about the need to audit the code, well, the GCM source is available, get to work, buddy.

    Of course, you won’t. You’ll just post the same shit again, won’t you, Vernon?

  62. #62 Lee
    August 26, 2007

    vernon, you have got to be fricking kidding. You say:
    —-
    Lee, all you argue is that the data from the stations is good enough for doing climate trends. (Lee -this is a false statement, vernon) Hansen et al (2001) A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change just does not happen to be about climate change trends (Lee – this is an absurd statement, vernon. What the hell do you think the word ‘change’ means in that title?). It is about the station off-sets for UHI, Time of observation, meta-data (station moves) for individual stations. (Lee – actually, the paper details those new corrections, but it is about the results when one includes those corrections in the analysis of changing temperatures over the last century – ie, a change in temps over time, ie, a trend)

    All of your arguments are about trends and change in trends such as: (highlighting added by me)

    The fact is, the delta-temp data from surface stations is in VERY, VERY close agreement, regionally and overall, with data determined by a completely different methodology, from the satellites, for the entire period of overlap in those two data sets.

    Which may or may not be true and yet still would not be some thing relevant to my argument, you have not shown that it is. Why, because Hansen is not doing trends in this paper, he is doing individual station off-sets.

    Quite simply, Lee, did you read the paper?’
    —-
    First, that is far from all my arguments – you are still simply refusing to address much of the data and analysis being shown to you.

    Second, you appear to be simply illiterate – or dishonest – when you say:
    “Hansen is not doing trends in this paper, he is doing individual station off-sets”

    The very first sentence of the abstract of Hansen 2001 says:
    “We compare the United States and global surface air temperature changes of the past century using the current Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis and the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) record [Kurl et al., 1990].”

    See the part about temperature CHANGES for the last century? What the hell do you think that means, vernon?

    The paper goes on to look at the assumptions behind those new corrections, and to apply them to the temperature record over the last century, and to look at what impact this has on the CHANGES OVER THE LAST CENTURY for US and world temperatures. Again, a change over time is a trend, vernon.

    Anbd that ‘urban offset’ you keep crowing about? It consists simply of setting the urban trends to be equal to the trend of surrounding rural areas. This is identical to simply ignoring the urban record. IOW, the trend is the RURAL trend, nothing more.

    If you can’t even understand the basic purpose of the paper you are citing from, and making arguments from, ad detailed clearly in the very first fricking sentence of that paper, and you wont address clear cogent responses made repeatedly by several people, who on earth do you expect to be taken seriously?

  63. #63 Lee
    August 26, 2007

    vernon, to make this clearer – we have a VERY, VERY good way to determine whether the station data and adjustments are accurate. We compare them to an entirely independent data set, the satellite record, over the entire period of overlap, and we find they are in very, very very close agreement. This is an independent verification, and it increases the reliance one can place on both data sets. You have repeatedly refused to address this simple fact.

    In your response to Gavin, you say:
    “Hansen assumed the stations did meet the accuracy requirements, it can be shown this assumption is not supported.”
    First, what do you mean by “accuracy requirements” here? Siting standards? If so, where does Hansen state this?

    Second, this statement is simply false. They do NOT assume that any single station is accurate. In fact, they do the exact opposite – they compare EVERY SINGLE STATION to a network of adjacent stations, to try to determine and correct possible spurious trends. Say it again- their methodology assumes that there might be error in EVERY SINGLE STATION, and looks for that potential error, by comparing stations. Their methodology shows that they assume the exact opposite of what you claim.

  64. #64 oconnellc
    August 26, 2007

    sod:
    > cannot show wether false siting does effect the rural station

    > wether a significant number of stations is effected

    > wether the net effect of false placement will change temperature upwards or downwards

    The point is: What is the answer to those questions? It appears that the current solution is to just assume the answer is NO to all three. Why? Hanson explicitly stated in his paper that he depended on some factors in the siting/history of the stations. As long as he had reason to believe that his assumptions were correct, then I don’t think he did anything wrong. However, now that information is coming out that those assumptions may not be correct, why is it correct to now just assume that those assumptions didn’t matter? There is some number of stations greater than zero that are not in the place everyone thinks they are. How could that not have some impact on the final results of using that data? How can we know if that impact is statistically significant unless the people we pay to determine such things actually do so?

  65. #65 dhogaza
    August 26, 2007

    It appears that the current solution is to just assume the answer is NO to all three.

    False statement … and you should know it’s false, and would know it’s false, if you did a little reading.

    There is some number of stations greater than zero that are not in the place everyone thinks they are.

    This was certainly true of McIntyre, as recently as a week ago, who was crowing about an airport weather station he “proved” photographically was in a sea of asphalt, when in actuality it was in a large field somewhat distant.

  66. #66 richard
    August 27, 2007

    “For example, Gavin et. al. discuss lots of scientific things on their blogs and even express their opinion about other published papers on RealClimate.”

    Yes, but 1) those discussion do not affect the scientific record unless they are entered into the peer-review journals. It is the peer-review record that determines discussion in science disciplines. One does not, after all, often see blog comments cited in peer-reviewed journal articles. 2) Hansen et al are not under any obligation to engage in protracted discussions with those who refuse to enter their arguments into the peer-review process.

    Perhaps you should get together with Vernon (he seems to need some stimulation to get this done) and prepare a draft paper for peer-review rebutting Hansen et al. I am sure readers here would love to see a draft.

  67. #67 oconnellc
    August 27, 2007

    dhogaza, maybe you could point me at the reference that shows that the number of incorrectly sited stations is not significant? Or should I still be waiting for you to give me some reference about that great service provided by Social Security first?

  68. #68 oconnellc
    August 27, 2007

    richard, you didn’t comment on that email by Mc? Seems that it isn’t “just” the peer reviewed literature that affects scientific discussion.

    And maybe, just maybe, Vernon isn’t trying to convince Hanson by posting here. I’d be surprised if anyone really thinks that Hanson reads this blog. If the thought is that any posting on a blog will not affect the scientific record, then why not just ignore it? dhogaza seems to give postings by Vernon lots of credence just by the reaction (note his name-calling of Vernon about not making a post on RC. Sure seemed like dhogaza actually thought it was important that Vernon make a post on an internet blog).

    And finally, I don’t see why Vernon should be required to publish. If his mechanic screws up, Vernon doesn’t fix his car himself, he gets a new mechanic to fix it or he has the original fix it. And you are right, Hanson can choose to ignore Vernon if he wants to. So why don’t we wait to see what Hanson chooses to do? In the meantime, you can comment on what he wrote as you choose.

    By the way, after Gavin makes a change to a climate model and re-runs a simulation, how does he check to make sure the results are ‘good’?

  69. #69 richard
    August 27, 2007

    “richard, you didn’t comment on that email by Mc? Seems that it isn’t “just” the peer reviewed literature that affects scientific discussion.”

    There is no evidence that Mc’s email has altered the peer-review record, is there? Have you or anyone done an analysis that shows that Mc’s email and the data correction that followed changes anything in the peer-review record? No, didn’t think so. Mc’s email has not changted the science discussion because it hasn’t changed the science. If you don’t agree, then publish in the peer-reviewed press to the contrary.

    “And finally, I don’t see why Vernon should be required to publish.”

    He is not required to publish. But if he wants the climate science community to take him seriously then he has to publish in the peer-reviewed journals. Unless he can demonstrate via peer-review that he has a case, then there is no obligation on anyone’s part to listen to him or respond.

  70. #70 richard
    August 27, 2007

    “By the way, after Gavin makes a change to a climate model and re-runs a simulation, how does he check to make sure the results are ‘good’?”

    Why don’t you ask him? If he isn’t publishing his new simulation via the peer-review process, then it won’t be part of the scientific record in any event.

  71. #71 oconnellc
    August 27, 2007

    richard:
    > Unless he can demonstrate via peer-review that he has a case, then there is no obligation on anyone’s part to listen to him or respond.

    That is a relief. I guess I agree with you, the only thing that changed as a result of Mc’s email was the temperature record for the US. It sounds like Vernon is also talking about how the temperature record for the US is determined. I mean, the methodology he refers to is from a peer-reviewed paper, but it doesn’t sound like he wants anything in that peer reviewed paper to change. My take is that Hanson stated some assumptions about the state of the temperature taking stations. Seems to me that Vernon thinks it is possible that those assumptions might not be true. If they were true, then I’m sure Vernon would be happy if Hanson were to continue to follow the procedure outlined in his peer-reviewed paper. Maybe all Vernon wants is a little reassurance that those assumptions really are valid. If that is the case, then Hanson’s peer-reviewed paper doesn’t need to change? Maybe Vernon doesn’t need to publish after all!

  72. #72 Vernon
    August 27, 2007

    sod, sorry but you should read more.

    Station that do not meet guidelines:

    NOAA/CRN says on station sites:

    not be subject to local microclimatic interferences such as might be induced by topography, katabatic flows or wind shadowing, poor solar exposure, the presence of large water bodies not representative of the region, agricultural practices such as irrigation, suspected long-term fire environments, human interferences, or nearby buildings or thermal sinks.

    ‘The Role of Rural Variability in Urban Heat Island Determination for Phoenix, Arizona’ (2006)
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(2004)043%3C0476%3ATRORVI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    The 0.8 – 5.4 degree C variability based on siting far exceeds the few hundredths of a degree C over the past 100 years that Hansen assumes.

    Per NOAA/CRN 300 stations are needed to give 95 percent confidence within the USA. Hansen uses ~250 stations. So, Lee, you do not have a way to determine if the station is good or bad, there are not enough stations for the number of cells in the grid.

    Actually, Gavin in ‘Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE: Comparison to In Situ,
    Satellite, and Reanalysis Data’ (2006) says he uses the surface station data:

    As in the other diagnostics, the differences among the different models are small compared to the offset with observations.

    However, if the surface station is not good, then he is optimzing his model to a bad ‘real’.

  73. #73 oconnellc
    August 27, 2007

    richard:
    > Why don’t you ask him? If he isn’t publishing his new simulation via the peer-review process, then it won’t be part of the scientific record in any event.

    Is it still ok if the rest of us want to talk about it anyway? Gavin talked about his models outside of a peer reviewed journal. Can the rest of us do the same?

    However, are you implying that anyone who makes a reference to RC isn’t making a reference that should be considered? I’m fine with that, but I just wanted to make sure. Are you saying that people should stop referring to RC, and instead only quote lines from an applicable peer-reviewed paper? I have had people tell me that I should spend more time reading at RC, but if that is a waste of time, please let me know.

  74. #74 richard
    August 27, 2007

    “Is it still ok if the rest of us want to talk about it anyway?”

    Talk all you want. However, the climate science community will not take you seriously unless you publish in the peer-reviewed journals. I’m afraid that your comments and Vernon’s have reached the point of diminishing returns.

    The Realclimate folks have a blog. Good for them; they allow comments, good for them. They even answer questions and good for them. But no one is under any obligation to answer the same questions again and again, just because someone else does not like the answers.

    If you really have a point to make, the peer-review process is available for your use. Now, why can’t you go ahead and prepare something for publication? What exactly is your problem? In any other field of science, that is what is done to advance an argument. One has to conclude that your arguments have no real basis and that you are afraid to submit them to peer-review.

  75. #75 sod
    August 27, 2007

    offtopic but very important:
    Alberto Gonzales is finally gone!
    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

    The point is: What is the answer to those questions? It appears that the current solution is to just assume the answer is NO to all three.
    i don t think so. please notice that it is enough, if ONE of those answers is NO.
    reasons for not researching this further could be: “not my field of expertise” (siting problems)
    or “not the problem i m working on” or “too expensive to verify stations” (remember, we re dealing wit GLOBAL stations!

    There is some number of stations greater than zero that are not in the place everyone thinks they are.
    no. the problem is HOW the places looks, not WHERE it is.

    sod, sorry but you should read more.

    Station that do not meet guidelines:

    NOAA/CRN says on station sites:
    funny, but i happen to support carefully chosen sites.
    but the problem is, we ll have to work with the stations we have got, and the past will always be stuck to those stations numbers!

    The 0.8 – 5.4 degree C variability based on siting far exceeds the few hundredths of a degree C over the past 100 years that Hansen assumes.
    hansen is speaking about 0.15°C.
    those max numbers will matter very little. did you check, whether their sites fullfilled standards? ;)

  76. #76 oconnellc
    August 27, 2007

    richard:
    > One has to conclude that your arguments have no real basis and that you are afraid to submit them to peer-review.

    I’m sorry, but that has to be the stupidest thing I have read here. You have decided ahead of time that the criteria for evaluating an idea is the ability of the proponents of the idea to get them published? Please confirm if that is what you are saying or not. Tim actually has a recent post where someone has commented on the possibility of it getting more difficult to publish papers. The thought is that as it gets more difficult to publish, then researchers from small labs or third world countries would have less ability to publish their research. According to you, their ideas would then not be worth considering because of some outside limit on their ability to get published.

    Is it possible for you to just judge the idea presented to you on its own merits? If you don’t think you have the ability to judge it, then don’t do so. If you do, then please go ahead. But this idiocy that an idea has to get published for it to be considered is too much. My god, this is a blog!!! If I got it published, would you then state that you didn’t value the credentials of the journal that published it and then you still wouldn’t consider it? My god, this is a blog, if you think an idea is bad, just say so and say why.

    This is just crazy:
    > Now, why can’t you go ahead and prepare something for publication? What exactly is your problem?

    What if I said I have a family memeber that is sick and I have to work digging ditches to pay for medical care? Would that be a good enough reason for you? What if I have been unable to fight the institutional bias against researchers over 6 feet tall? Or the bias against the bald? Would any of those reasons have anything to do with the actual idea under discussion? This is a blog advertising that is is close to its 500,000th comment. How many of those comments have been directly based on a paper about to be published by the author of the comment?

  77. #77 richard
    August 27, 2007

    “What if I said I have a family memeber that is sick and I have to work digging ditches to pay for medical care? ”

    Then, I’d say you have better things to do than commenting on this blog.

    Fact is, if you want climate scientists to take you seriously you have to publish in peer-reviewed journals. It is not about scoring points, it is about convincing other scientists that you have an arguable case. You do that by publishing, not by asking questions on blogs.
    You clearly don’t like the answers you are being given; the solution is to publish your data and analyses. Why can’t you do that?

  78. #78 richard
    August 27, 2007

    “According to you, their ideas would then not be worth considering because of some outside limit on their ability to get published.”

    Wrong again. I said the science community would ignore it because it does not enter into the peer-reviewed literature. Peer-review is the gatekeeper.

  79. #79 oconnellc
    August 27, 2007

    richard, thanks. I think we got it. The IPCC is unlikely to spot these comments and revise their latest conclusions. Thanks for clearing that up. You have added tons to this discussion. Pat yourself on the back.

    Now, Vernon is posting on a blog. I’m pretty sure that Vernons intended audience was not the IPCC (Vernon, I apologize for speaking for you. If this really was your intended audience, feel free to correct me). I’m guessing that his intended audience was just people who read this blog. Now that we have our collective heads around the scope of things, what do you think about what he is saying?

  80. #80 dhogaza
    August 28, 2007

    The idiots are posting rich, here, and I’ve not bothered reading in detail (since oconnellc is established as being a dishonest bastard) but …

    dhogaza, maybe you could point me at the reference that shows that the number of incorrectly sited stations is not significant?

    Maybe you could point at the reference that says they ARE significant?

    Maybe you could point at one reference that measures the bias caused by an incorrectly sited station on the TREND, and show that this one station hasn’t been eliminated or adjusted by the GISS in their analyis?

    If you want people to believe that station bias disproves AGW, you’re going to have to provide a reference.

    A reference that stands up to the various techniques that are used to increase confidence in the robustness of the data?

    That ALSO, OF COURSE, explains why the satellite data is also biased in the same way?

    Show us some photographs of asphalt parking lots in space, PLEASE!!!!

    PLEASE!!!!

  81. #81 oconnellc
    August 28, 2007

    dhogaza, I’m surprised you were able to post something towards me. I figured you were busy posting up something else about sun activity or Vernon that you were later going to retract. Or maybe finding that reference about Social Security for me?

    I don’t have a reference that says anything about site biases. I would be surprised if any references exist. Hanson states that he assumes that they have already been taken care of (you know, that part about inhomogenieties and site history). Why would Hanson come up with a method to take care of problems with data when he explicitly assumes that those problems don’t exist?

    Hanson does state:
    > if the station history records and homogeniety adjustments are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    Now, as much as you like to lie and state that surfacestations.org is only about trying to take photos, they are actually trying to verify things like station history. Now, how much difference can this station history make? Well, Hanson says that adjustments for station history are responsible for .15 degree of the US warming. The other large adjustment is the time of day bias. Hanson states:
    > to apply this correction, it is necessary to have reliable metadata defining all changes of time of observation in the station record

    This change is responsible for another .15 degree.

    This is .3 degrees of the US warming. These two changes are equal to all of the net US warming over the period he studies. These changes are made *before* he makes the urban/rural adjustments. These changes have nothing to do with comparing stations to other stations. He adjusts these stations, and then determines which ones are urban and which are rural. And then he forces the urban trend to fit the rural trend. There are 250 rural stations. How many of them need to have had incorrect history and time of observation adjustments before they affect the trend? I don’t know. Do you? If there is a reference that states how many, please point it out to me.

    Once again, I asked a question. I don’t know if they are significant or not. You sure seem to act like you do know. If you do, point me at what makes you so sure. If you don’t know, stop making so much stupid noise. Hansons paper explicitly states that his results are dependent on knowing all this site history etc. etc. The Odessa Wa station metadata states that it was moved years ago. Yet the caretaker of that site states that it hasn’t been moved. Hanson is counting “lights out” with a resolution of 2.7 km. How far off is the Odessa Wa station from where he is counting lights? Did he make a time of observation adjustment to Odessa? So, I ask, does this make a difference? The most frustrating thing is that before I can even ask if it is possible, you state that I have to prove that it actually happened!

  82. #82 Vernon
    August 28, 2007

    dhogaza, I will say again.

    We know that stations are not sited IAW NWS/NOAA/WMO guidance because surfacestations.org is recording that fact.

    Station that do not meet guidelines:

    NOAA/CRN says on station sites:

    not be subject to local microclimatic interferences such as might be induced by topography, katabatic flows or wind shadowing, poor solar exposure, the presence of large water bodies not representative of the region, agricultural practices such as irrigation, suspected long-term fire environments, human interferences, or nearby buildings or thermal sinks.

    Further, the study ‘The Role of Rural Variability in Urban Heat Island Determination for Phoenix, Arizona’ (2006) http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(2004)043%3C0476%3ATRORVI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    shows that 1 – 5 degee C variability based on siting. This far exceeds the few hundredths of a degree C over the past 100 years that Hansen assumes for his UHI off-set work (2001)

    Finally, per NOAA/CRN, 300 stations are needed to give 95 percent confidence within the USA. Hansen uses ~250 stations. So you do not have a way to determine if the station is good or bad, there are not enough stations for the number of cells in the grid.

    dhogaza, once again I say the UHI off-set is not about trends but about temp delta between urban and local rural. This means the the trend does not matter, just the accuracy of the individual stations.

    Now since Hansen’s UHI off-set is used on all the stations, if it is wrong, and there is now no evidence it is right, then it will inject a bias that can not be corrected.

  83. #83 dhogaza
    August 28, 2007

    dhogaza, once again I say the UHI off-set is not about trends but about temp delta between urban and local rural.

    And, once again, I’ll tell you that I happen to think Gavin Schmidt knows more about the subject than you.

    And, once again, I’ll point out that the trend is unchanged in any statistically significant way if you remove the urban stations entirely.

    And, once again, if you think the surface station record sucks, fine! Use the satellite data instead …

    Hey, how’s that artic ice pack doing? Still melting much, much faster than predicted or did it freeze up suddenly overnight?

  84. #84 Vernon
    August 28, 2007

    dhogaza, have you read Hansen (2001). You roll in, ignore the argument (both facts and logic) to say gavin knows more than I do… whoopiee

    Read the discussion on RC. The only thing Gavin will not agree to is that it proves that Hansen (2001) UHI off-set is no longer valid. He does not disagree with my facts or logic.

    Boy are you a troll.

  85. #85 dhogaza
    August 28, 2007

    Vernon:

    The only thing Gavin will not agree to is that it proves that Hansen (2001) UHI off-set is no longer valid. He does not disagree with my facts or logic.

    Gavin:

    You have a very odd idea about what Hansen et al are doing.

    Vernon (at RC)

    Gavin agrees that failure to meet station siting guides will inject error and that surfacestations.org is enough to tell if the station is meeting the guide or not.

    Gavin:

    I said no such thing.

    Vernon says Gavin doesn’t disagree with his logic, yet Gavin says:

    Your logic is the most faulty.

    Boy, this is too easy.

  86. #86 Lee
    August 29, 2007

    vernon, one more time.

    It doesnt matter AT ALL if there are 5C variations in absolute temperatures based on siting. It makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the temp trends over time whether the thermometer is set up here in this hot field, or over there where it is 2C cooler, or in that city over there where it is perhaps 3C warmer. In and of itself, the fact that UHI might make a city warmer than surrounding rural areas is irrelevant. In itself, it makes not one damn bit of difference – that is the effect of using temp anomalies.

    Siting issues are ONLY relevant if they cause a spurious trend to be superimposed on the data. Teh effects of siting on absolute temps at a single time HAS NO RELEVANCE to that issue.

    The paper you keep citing, “The Role of Rural Variability in Urban Heat Island Determination for Phoenix, Arizona” is utterly and completely irrelevant to this discussion. It looks at differences in absolute temps at a given time – and that issues simply does not matter to the climate analysis.

    If you can wrap your head around this one simple bedrock basic fact (one of THE most basic facts in this analysis of climate) enough to understand it, perhaps we can work on the myriad of other basic misunderstandings you are demonstrating.

  87. #87 Vernon
    August 29, 2007

    dhogaza, wow, nice way to lie. Go read all the exchange with Gavin. Not the bits of pieces out of context.

    Lee, I would think your really really stupid or you have not read Hansen (2001) and you just using your pro CO2 AGW talking points. Hansen (2001) which it appears you have never read is about the difference between urban temp and rural temp in a gird cell. Hansen’s UHI off-set is applied to all stations as part of the adjustment processes for GISTEMP.

    That study that does not matter is about the effect of sites.

    Absolute temperture matters in this study. If you had read it you would see that accuracy is one of the two assumptions which I can show Hansen got wrong.

  88. #88 dhogaza
    August 29, 2007

    dhogaza, wow, nice way to lie. Go read all the exchange with Gavin. Not the bits of pieces out of context.

    I have, and people here can go read RC themselves if they really think I’m lying when I say that Gavin does not agree with you.

    It’s the latest “friday roundup” thread, folks, buried in the last 25% or so of comments.

    Gavin’s stopped responding to Vernon, I don’t blame him.

    Doesn’t mean he suddenly agrees with Vernon, though.

  89. #89 Lee
    August 29, 2007

    no, vernon.

    Listen carefully – Hansen 2001 is about temp TRENDS in the US and world. That is why the word “changes” is right in the title, and why it discusses changes from teh very fiorst sentence of the abstract.

    Hansen 2001 looks at differences in urban and rural TRENDS (NOT absolute temperatures), as one part of refining his estimates of CHANGES OVER THE LAST CENTURY in temperatures.

    Vernon, you simply do not understand what the hell you are reading and talking about.

  90. #90 Vernon
    August 29, 2007

    For you lee and dehogaza, he is what Gavin an I think. This is the last post in our discussion.

    Gavin, thank you for your input.

    [Response: Your logic is the most faulty. Take the statement above, 'science is based on observation' - fine, no-one will disagree. But then you imply that all observations are science. That doesn't follow at all. Science proceeds by organised observation of the things that are important. You cannot quantify a microsite problem and its impact over time from a photograph. If a site's photograph is perfect, how long has it been so? If it is not, when did it start? These are almost unanswerable questions, and so this whole photographic approach is unlikely to ever yield a quantitative assessment. Instead, looking at the data, trying to identify jumps, and correcting for them, and in the meantime setting up a reference network that will be free of any biases to compare with, is probably the best that can be done. Oh yes, that's what they're doing. - gavin]

    I really like the way you moved from specific (my argument) to general (nothing to do with my argument) and then proceeded to take me to task for something I did not say. I said ‘science is based on observation’ and are ‘you saying that a picture cannot show whether a station is meeting site guides?’ You seem to disagree with neither of these two facts.

    I will admit that I have a hard time following your logic, but your basically saying that since the pictures will show whether the station meets site guidance does not matter because you cannot use them to determine the amount or history of the error. I do not see what that has to do with my argument. My argument is quite simple; either a site is compliant or not-compliant with site guidance. I believe that a picture will show whether the site is compliant or not, which you appear to agree on. If it is not, then I expect based on the studies that the error the site will be reporting will be between 1-5 degrees C, but that does not matter. What matter is the site should not be used by Hansen et al (2001) to determine the UHI off-set.

    So I have to ask, what is faulty about my facts or logic?

    Here is my argument:

    Hansen (2001) states quite plainly that he depends on the accuracy of the station data for the accuracy of his UHI off-set. (You agree with this.)

    WMO/NOAA/NWS have siting standards (You agree with this)

    Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards (You agree with this)

    There is no way to determine the accuracy of the station data for stations that do not meet standards. (You agree with this, well actually you seem upset that this is not being provided.)

    Hansen uses lights=0 in his 2001 study (You agree with this.)

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in a accurate rural environment (You agree with this.)

    At this time there is no way to determine the accuracy of Hansen’s UHI off-set (You will not commit to this so where did I get it wrong?)

    Any GCM that uses this off-set has no way to determine the accuracy of the product being produced. (You do not agree with this, but since you use the surface station temp as a diagnostic, then it does have an impact.)

    Comment by Vernon — 28 August 2007 @ 11:58 AM

    So, other than Gavin (a climate scientist) being upset that surfacestations.org is not figuring out what the errors are per stations and the fact meta data is not showing when the stations changed, he basically agrees with my arguement.

    Lee, if Gavin agrees, your wrong! Dehogaza, try using all the facts and quit taking things out of context to lie.

  91. #91 dhogaza
    August 29, 2007

    There is no way to determine the accuracy of the station data for stations that do not meet standards. (You agree with this, well actually you seem upset that this is not being provided.)

    Gavin explicitly does not agree with this.

    Vernon, you’re at a great disadvantage here. People reading your posts can, by definition, read. Which means they can, if they disbelieve me, go read for themselves what Gavin actually thinks about the robustness of the surface station trend data.

    Vernon – the JC of climate science.

  92. #92 Vernon
    August 29, 2007

    dehogaza, right, they can read all the way though to the final post, which I cross posted here where Gavin does not dispute my summation of our discussion.

    You taking things out of context and ignoring the finial post of our discussion is just over the top dishonest.

    Gavin is not happy with what I have found, but even he does not disagree that I found it. I do not think that Dr. Hansen made errors on purpose, but the study that quantifies station site issues was not done until 2006. surfacestations.org’s station census that identifies those stations that do no meet site guidance was just recently started.

    So, yes, now that new evidence is out, Dr. Hansen needs to redo his work on the UHI off-set. Once this is done, we will get a truer picture of what the climate trend really is. But until it is redone, there is no basis in fact to support using Dr. Hansen’s off set till the work has been redone.

  93. #93 Lee
    August 29, 2007

    vernon, Gavin in his last post to yo called your logic “faulty” and seems to have simply decided to stop wasting his time with you.

    You can believe all you want that when a man stops responding to your idiocy, that it means you have won and he agrees with you. Thinking so will not make it so.

    You very clearly have no frickign idea what the UHI correction is, and how it is applied. It is not, CAN NOT, be 1-5C. IT has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the absolute temp differences between urban and rural stations. The point of using temp anomalies is to remove those absolute temp differences BEFORE STARTING THE ANALYSIS and before applying TREND corrections.

    If you dispute this, then why don’t you, instead of merely repeating the blithering idiocy you keep simply restating ad nauseum – nearly word for word each time – why dont you tell us in detail what Hansen did, in your mind, and why it was wrong? Define for us that UHI offset you keep stating is applied to “all stations.” In simple english, how is it calculated, and how is it applied?

    Because I don’t think, you have a clue what that paper actually says and does, and how the surface temp record is actually calculated.

    Because, dude, based on your

  94. #94 Vernon
    August 30, 2007

    Lee, I take it back, you are stupid. Your not to big on reading comprehension. I listed what points, after a long discussion Gavin and I agreed on and disagreed on. Some how I have never noticed on RC Gavin not responding to anything he does not agree with.

    Well, as to me understanding what Hansen (2001) was doing in regards to UHI off-set, this is what I said it was and Gavin agreed with:

    Well, as to whether I understand what Hansen says he is doing, as to the trend vs temperature delta, I could be wrong on this, and if I am, enlighten me, but I understood that Hansen is taking the urban stations, processing them, then the rural stations, processing them for each grid, then on a yearly basis, do the delta between rural and urban for each grid cell per year, then taking those to do the UHI off-set. Then that off-set is done against individual stations as part of GISSTemp processing. (I know I am simplifying this since there is actually urban, semi-urban, and unlighted.) It is not trend vs trend. The only part I really have questions on is which off-set was he doing in what order, or was he doing all variations and then taking the mean?

    So, you want to try again. I do understand what Hansen (2001) is doing. It would seem pretty sure that you do not.

  95. #95 dhogaza
    August 30, 2007

    Some how I have never noticed on RC Gavin not responding to anything he does not agree with…

    Another idiotic statement by Vernon, considering that anyone here can visit RC, read a few threads, and notice that in many Gavin rarely responds.

    In Vernon’s world, this means that Gavin agrees with all comments made which he doesn’t explicitly respond to, even if they directly contradict each other.

    Vernon, the JC of climate science.

    Just a reminder…

    Gavin:

    You have a very odd idea about what Hansen et al are doing.

  96. #96 Lee
    August 30, 2007

    vernon,

    You still have not yet told us what you imagine that “UHI offset” actually is. You simply say it is derived from a comparison of “rural and urban” something – you haven’t even yet told us what you think is being compared between “rural and urban.”

    Hint – it is NOT ‘temperature’ that is being compared. Do you know what actually is being compared?
    Another hint – this is the reason the 1-5C temp variations based on where a station is sited, as in that irrelevant paper you keep mentioning, is irrelevant to the climate analysis.

    So, vernon:

    What is the ‘UHI offset” you keep mentioning?

    What are its units?

    How is it calculated?
    (hint – saying it is the “delta between rural and urban for each grid cell per year” tells us nothing. delta what?).

    What is it calculated from? Exactly what is being compared? Urban and rural WHAT?

    Exactly how is it applied to “all’ the stations in the GISSTEMP data set? (hint: saying “do the UHI off-set” is not an answer here).

  97. #97 Vernon
    August 30, 2007

    Lee, now you are beyond words. You do not know a thing about that your talking about do you? Lee, GISS takes the raw station data and adjusts it for time of day, meta (site moves), and UHI off-set. Since GISS will not tell anyone how much they process the data other than to say that they do and they use Hansen et al (2001) as the basis for the ‘adjustments’ that is all we need to know. If errors can be shown in Hansen (2001), which have been. Then it is wrong.

    Tell you what, you rush over to RC and ask Gavin to release the code they use to make the changes. He say no, some one has to repeat Hansen’s work. Well, I did an analysis of one part of Hansen’s work, the UHI off-set and found there is no evidence to support this suppositions.

    I do not have to prove what it is to prove what it is not.

  98. #98 dhogaza
    August 30, 2007

    Tell you what, you rush over to RC and ask Gavin to release the code they use to make the changes.

    What do you expect Gavin to do? Steal it? It’s not his project and not his code to release.

  99. #99 Lee
    August 30, 2007

    so, vernon conspicuously does not address even one of the basic questions I asked him. Again.

    Actually, vernon, GISS apply quite a few corrections. The ones you list are the ones added in Hansen 2001. I am specifically discussing the “UHI offset” you keep mentioning. You say it could be off 1-5C, based on your citing of “The Role of Rural Variability in Urban Heat Island Determination for Phoenix, Arizona.” This is absurd – that paper is simply irrelevant to Hansen 2001. If you feel otherwise, tell me why? The questions I asked are trying to get you to do so.

    Again, a major hint – the “Rural Variability” paper is about variability of absolute temperatures based on different physical locations, and the Hansen UHI correction is NOT. Hansen’s UHI correction is applied to Temperature anomaly, relative to a common baseline time period, and whethe the delta ANOMALY is different between urban and rural stations.

    Not delta temp. Delta ANOMALY. This is NOT subject to the same location-based range of variability as the Phoenix paper. It is looking at something completely and totally different. Do you understand this?

    You also say that some “UHI offset” is applied to all stations You keep saying this despite clearly not knowing what the “UHI offset” even is, and based on no evidence as far as I can see. I’ve asked you several times to tell me what this “UHI offset” you keep citing is. Not the formula for it, not what the value is. What it is. Plain english is sufficient. Yo say it is based on urban v rural delta. Delta what? What is being compared to derive this “UHI offset?” Because, dude, IT AIN’T ABSOLUTE TEMPERATUE that is being compared to make the UHI adjustment.

  100. #100 Vernon
    August 31, 2007

    What do you do here, sit around chanting to Gaia and ignore any thing that does not agree with your dogma? The facts are:

    Hansen (2001) states quite plainly that he depends on the accuracy of the station data for the accuracy of his UHI off-set.

    WMO/NOAA/NWS have siting standards

    Surfacestations.org’s census is showing (based on where they are at now in the census) that a significant number of stations fail to meet WMO/NOAA/NWS standards

    There is no way to determine the accuracy of the station data for stations that do not meet standards.

    This is were that absurd study into rural sites comes in – it could be off 1-5C, based on “The Role of Rural Variability in Urban Heat Island Determination for Phoenix, Arizona.”

    Hansen uses lights=0 in his 2001 study

    Due to failure of stations to meet siting standards, lights=0 does not always put the station in a accurate rural environment.

    This matters because per Hansen (2001):

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001Hansenetal.pdf

    The GISS urban adjustment is dependent upon the accuracy of the temperature records of the unlit stations, so if the station history records and homogeneity adjustments for these stations are inaccurate or incomplete, this could alter the inferred urban warming.

    Further, Hansen made additional assumptions (his definition of rural):

    We are implicitly assuming that urban (local human induced) warming at the unlit stations is negligible. We argue that this warming can be, at most, a few hundredths of a degree Celsius over the past 100 years.

    Lee, you then keep saying it is about trends, but do you have a clue how Hansen came up with his trends? It is in the paper, I would suggest you read it before sounding any more foolish.

    Hansen broke down ever station into urban, semi-urban, and rural (for rural he used lights = 0). He then took all the urban stations in the grid and got the mean for that grid cell. He took the rural stations in that cell or in near by cells to get their mean for the the target cell. He then subtracted the rural from the urban. He did this for semi-urban also for dicussion sake, lets limit it to urban and rural. He did this for cell for every year. He then took all this and did a trend. If you had bothered to read it. Before he does anything with trends, he does a simple urban – rural for the temp delta where he says specifically that if the rural temperature is in-accurate, then what he is measuring could be an artifact of that error. This means that absurd study into rural sites which shows that failure to not meet site guidance will inject 1-5 derees of error along with surfacestations.org’s census pictures showing whether a station meets site guidance. Shows quite plainly that the two assumptions made by Hansen (2001) for UHI are in correct.

    At this time there is no way to determine the accuracy of Hansen’s UHI off-set

    Any GCM that uses this off-set has no way to determine the accuracy of the product being produced.

    Read the study next time.