FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
oopsie..
Posted on 08/08/2007 2:28:50 PM PDT by Freep EE
Quantifying the Hansen Y2K Error By Steve McIntyre I observed recently that Hansen’s GISS series contains an apparent error in which Hansen switched the source of GISS raw from USHCN adjusted to USHCN raw for all values January 2000 and later. For Detroit Lakes MN, this introduced an error of 0.8 deg C. I’ve collated GISS raw minus USHCN adjusted for all USHCN sites (using the data scraped from the GISS site, for which I was most criticized in Rabett-world). Figure 1 below shows a histogram of the January 2000 step for the 1221 stations (calculated here as the difference between the average of the difference after Jan 2000 and for the 1990-1999 period.) The largest step occurred in Douglas AZ where the Hansen error is 1.75 deg C! There is obviously a bimodal distribution.
—The largest step occurred in Douglas AZ where the Hansen error is 1.75 deg C! —
Shocking! I thought there was an overwhelming global consensus on Hansen’s infallibility!!!
It's incomplete, and certainly not fully clarified, but it's not the normal arrogant denialist non-response that many other members of the Hockey Stick Team, like Mann, typically issue.
Input data for the analysis, collected by many national meteorological services around the world, is the unadjusted data of the Global Historical Climatology Network (Peterson and Vose, 1997 and 1998) except that the 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.)
By the way...did you see the GISS update on the 10 warmest years? I’m still trying to figure out whether it is an “official” update, or a derived update...but it looks like the figures have been off since 2000. If so, that’s what happens when you don’t release data, methods and procedures.
You two seem to show up on these threads. Thought you might like a bump.
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
This came about because of the review of the USHCN sites, a finding that many of this purported "high quality network" so far inspected have been found to be out of standard, and a debate over whether or not the problems have been properly adjusted for. What they found is that apparently - at least for the GISS data, a computer error has been lying undiscovered for 7+ years which has thrown off every year from 2000 on. ...One of the things that happens when one doesn't present the methods for open review.
this needs some work, i expect....but still.
BTW, McIntyre is the same guy who cut apart the hockeystick, and whose work was confirmed by the NAS’s Wegman report last summer.
AFAIK, he believes in global warming, but is just sick at the poor quality of the studies from various climate scientists and their abuse of statistical methods.
Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" (a series of articles on the view of scientists who have been labelled "Global Warming Deniers"):
Other References:
By the way, the figures are still in flux. They're having to make a lot of adjustments, not just for the years in question (2000-2006).
Thanks for the ping & link.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
Forgot, thanks lepton, for the ping, and for that link.
What’s the latest graph for that chart? The copies I remember seeing stop at 2000, showing the peak in 1998 but not much since then.
I particularly enjoyed seeing NASA's James Hansen (the only "scientist" Al Gore cited to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate committee in his March, 2007, anthropogenic global warming testimony) being ripped apart for his garbage-in/garbage-out climate computer modeling.
here is the Goddard Institute's most recent update, in text form.
Does anyone know why Climate Audit and Climate Science sites are apparently down and have been since this morning East Coast time?
I can only speculate that the sites were designed for us technical folks and not prepared for the huge traffic that their analysis has brought.
AGW`ers will laugh at this as inconsequential.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
