Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pick It Down

Adjustments Prior To 1972 Shall Be -0.2 Degrees

Recommended Posts

And Winston looked at the sheet handed him:

“Adjustments prior to 1972 shall be -0.2 degrees and after 1998 shall be +0.3 degrees.”

Winston wondered at the adjustment to the data. At this point, no one even knows if the data, prior to his adjustments, was raw data or already adjusted one or more times previously.

It didn’t matter. All Winston was sure of is that one of the lead climatologists needed more slope to match his computer model outputs. He punched out the new Fortran cards and then dropped the old cards into the Memory Hole where they were burned.

“There!” Winston exclaimed to himself. “Now the temperature data record is correct again; all is double-plus good.”

Climategate didn't stop them. What will? They badly need 2010 to beat 1998 as a new hottest year, they'll falsify the data any way they can to make it so.

changes_in_hadcrut_temperature_anomalies_from_june_3_to_july_28.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/hadcrut-is-hotting-up-adjustments-over-a-few-months/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now they've seen cameron cutting back on useless organisations and the US stop funding the East Anglian research centre they need to up the ante with more massaged data in a feeble attempt to appeal for more funding

laughable , if it wasn't so sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt our resident anthropogenic climate change fanatics will be along shortly, madly screaming that we don't understand, only scientists can understand and we should stfu and pay more green tax. Followed by some personal attacks and general attempts to muddy the water.. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climategate didn't stop them. What will? They badly need 2010 to beat 1998 as a new hottest year, they'll falsify the data any way they can to make it so.

changes_in_hadcrut_temperature_anomalies_from_june_3_to_july_28.png

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/hadcrut-is-hotting-up-adjustments-over-a-few-months/

I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the biggest adjustment there was about 0.025K, and that adjustments can happen for a couple of years as more stations report, and that we had some freak cold weather in the populated areas with the fastest station reporting during this time period.

Best stick with the wild eyed scattergun conspiracy theories..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the biggest adjustment there was about 0.025K, and that adjustments can happen for a couple of years as more stations report, and that we had some freak cold weather in the populated areas with the fastest station reporting during this time period.

Best stick with the wild eyed scattergun conspiracy theories..

And what was the error in these measured temperatures? I mean, all good scientific graphs should have error bars shouldn't they? The scale's a bit misleading too isn't it. It's almost like someone wanted to make the variations look larger than they are!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Followed by some personal attacks and general attempts to muddy the water.. <_<

Sounds rather like the climate sceptics tactics, add a bit of cherry picking and you will have a full house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the biggest adjustment there was about 0.025K, and that adjustments can happen for a couple of years as more stations report, and that we had some freak cold weather in the populated areas with the fastest station reporting during this time period.

Best stick with the wild eyed scattergun conspiracy theories..

As the Met Office and Hadley Centre propagandists are desperate for a "hottest year" headline they are working every trick in the book. This is a 0.025c increase (that's around 1 year of your busted global warming) in just a few weeks. I wonder what adjustments they can magic up in the next couple of months.

The appalling lack of quality control and version control on these statistics is shoddy when you consider how important they are claiming them to be. They haven't explained these significant changes.

Of course we've had some freak cold weather all right..that's why they need these "adjustments" isn't it.

It's amazing how on a site where most economic numbers tend to get doubted, we have posters who accept the re-writing of climate history by scientists who have a horse in the race, and who have already had their emails publised which evidence of malfeasance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the Met Office and Hadley Centre propagandists are desperate for a "hottest year" headline they are working every trick in the book. This is a 0.025c increase (that's around 1 year of your busted global warming) in just a few weeks. I wonder what adjustments they can magic up in the next couple of months.

If they are so into their propaganda why do they use a more conservative methodology than NASA?

The appalling lack of quality control and version control on these statistics is shoddy when you consider how important they are claiming them to be. They haven't explained these significant changes.

Yes, they have.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

Why are values slightly different when I download an updated file a year later?

All the files on this page (except Absolute) will be updated on a monthly basis to include the latest month within about four weeks of its completion. Updating includes not just data for the last month but the addition of any late reports for up to approximately the last two years. In addition to this the method of variance adjustment (used for CRUTEM3v and HadCRUT3v) works on the anomalous temperatures relative to the underlying trend on an approximate 30-year timescale. Estimating this trend requires estimation of grid-box temperatures for years before the start of each record and after the end. With the addition of subsequent years, the underlying trend will alter slightly, changing the variance-adjusted values. Effects will be greatest on the last year of the record, but an influence can be evident for the last three to four years. Full details of the variance adjustment procedure are given in Jones et al. (2001). Approximately yearly, the optimally averaged values will also be updated to take account of such additional past information

Of course we've had some freak cold weather all right..that's why they need these "adjustments" isn't it.

Yes, there was freak cold weather locally. Globally there was some very warm weather as well. Are you claiming that the satellite record is also faked?

It's amazing how on a site where most economic numbers tend to get doubted, we have posters who accept the re-writing of climate history by scientists who have a horse in the race, and who have already had their emails publised which evidence of malfeasance.

What is even more amazing is that people are still prepared to declare that some emails indicate 'malfeasance' despite their complete inability to make such a case when asked..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what was the error in these measured temperatures? I mean, all good scientific graphs should have error bars shouldn't they? The scale's a bit misleading too isn't it. It's almost like someone wanted to make the variations look larger than they are!

The great advantage of presenting data to innumerate people by useing graphs is that you can set the scale to reinforce what you want to say.

The data may be accurate but the impression may not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are so into their propaganda why do they use a more conservative methodology than NASA?

You mean they don't invent data for the Arctic like NASA do? Give them a medal!

Every change needs its own explanation, not just a rambling and generic paragraph.

Yes, there was freak cold weather locally. Globally there was some very warm weather as well. Are you claiming that the satellite record is also faked?

We've had an El Nino, which the satellites respond to more than the surface records. Despite this, the satellites do not show any global warming since 1998 so we still have that missing heat which is unexplained.

What is even more amazing is that people are still prepared to declare that some emails indicate 'malfeasance' despite their complete inability to make such a case when asked..

The emails are all over the net. It's not necessary to post them here too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The emails are all over the net. It's not necessary to post them here too.

Of course. That would involve you actually doing some work, other than finding forums to post the WUWT party line on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://wattsupwithth...the-real-story/

http://wattsupwithth...e-smoking-code/

Developers included commented code:

;

; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!

;

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]

valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

For non devs, it does what it says on the tin, it fudges the data in an array (list of data), and the developer has commented it as the 'fudge factor', and 'VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline'. Its not scientific, its school boy stuff. The developer he either been told, or decided to on there own fudge the output with a fudge factor... How anyone can call CRU scientific is nuts when you look at there playschool code. The code should be peer reviewed, and certainly shouldnt have code like this in it. This is HARDCoded adjustments to data, honestly thats crap code...

and it gets worse, if you plot the numbers in that array in excel, it looks like a hockey stick! OP is right, this is the data from the source code that says adjust by 2.5 after 1988 year after year. This is the actual CRU adjustment in code. The entire climate science revolves around these lines of code, and this fudge factor:

Untitled_16.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we had some freak cold weather

The freak cold weather of today could be the norm for tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For non devs, it does what it says on the tin, it fudges the data in an array (list of data), and the developer has commented it as the 'fudge factor', and 'VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline'.  Its not scientific, its school boy stuff.  The developer he either been told, or decided to on there own fudge the output with a fudge factor...  How anyone can call CRU scientific is nuts when you look at there playschool code. The code should be peer reviewed, and certainly shouldnt have code like this in it. This is HARDCoded adjustments to data, honestly thats crap code...

So, was this ever used?

(Hint: No)

But I'm glad to see you arguing for vastly increased funding for the CRU so they can actually afford full time developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, was this ever used?

(Hint: No)

But I'm glad to see you arguing for vastly increased funding for the CRU so they can actually afford full time developers.

Are you suggesting that the CRU team have insufficient or insufficiently qualified developers to do the job properly?

And I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but how do you know that this particular code snippet (or something similar) wasn't used. My concern is that there seems to be a common thread of allowing such fudges and approximations to take place without any oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, was this ever used?

(Hint: No)

But I'm glad to see you arguing for vastly increased funding for the CRU so they can actually afford full time developers.

Show the evidence!? they are a university they have trained developers available on tap a lack of software devs isnt the problem. Norwich isnt a leading compsci uni but Im sure they are very good. All devs wouldn't write code like that it is crap, devs only write code like that when they are forced to do something illogical, or you need to hide something, devs are logical people. Crap code comes from crap requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climategate didn't stop them. What will? They badly need 2010 to beat 1998 as a new hottest year, they'll falsify the data any way they can to make it so.

Have you come across James Delingpole? Personally I find him utterly despicable, but you might like him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

No doubt our resident anthropogenic climate change fanatics will be along shortly, madly screaming that we don't understand, only scientists can understand and we should stfu and pay more green tax. Followed by some personal attacks and general attempts to muddy the water.. <_<

2zexxs0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting that the CRU team have insufficient or insufficiently qualified developers to do the job properly?

Define 'properly'.

There is going to be a tradeoff between making code look perfect and getting research work done. And it's done by scientists, not software developers.. holding it to the standard of code that is expected to be used by other people appears strange.

And I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but how do you know that this particular code snippet (or something similar) wasn't used. My concern is that there seems to be a common thread of allowing such fudges and approximations to take place without any oversight.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

They have actually gone and found the papers using the graphs. That's how it is known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show the evidence!? they are a university they have trained developers available on tap a lack of software devs isnt the problem.  Norwich isnt a leading compsci uni but Im sure they are very good. All devs wouldn't write code like that it is crap, devs only write code like that when they are forced to do something illogical, or you need to hide something, devs are logical people. Crap code comes from crap requirements.

Bizzare comment..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show the evidence!? they are a university they have trained developers available on tap a lack of software devs isnt the problem.

You think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Norwich Compsci that bad? Perhaps I was just lucky with my uni...

Could you expand on your original comment? Who are the "trained developers" you're referring to? I actually don't understand what you're suggesting here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you expand on your original comment? Who are the "trained developers" you're referring to? I actually don't understand what you're suggesting here.

Post Grad students, doing projects for CRU? Trained as in they have got a computer science degree. I know computer science degrees arent especially real world, but graduates arent that bad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there we have it, even from the warmists. We can afford billions for pointless windmills that do not reduce fossil fuel use, but can't afford £30k to get the science right.

Oh but what's this in the Climategate files? Phil Jones received millions in subsidies for his studies. Why didn't he see fit to get his code sorted out?

It's all out there, it can't be put back in the box now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.