PART 5/ Opdaterede Sol/Is/temp/hav data

Steven Mosher har ikke gjort andet end at efterbehandle data han har fået fra BEST. Han har INTET tjekket efter og han har ingen anelse om at han har fået serveret grotesk fordrejede data til sine matematiske formler. Nej, han snyder ikke på vægten men godtager - uden argumentation af nogen art - at "alt nok er ok" og bidrager så bare med matematisk viden på totalt rådne in-data. Flot flot.

Steven Mosher har ikke gjort andet end at efterbehandle data han har fået fra BEST. Han har INTET tjekket efter og han har ingen anelse om at han har fået serveret grotesk fordrejede data til sine matematiske formler. Nej, han snyder ikke på vægten men godtager - uden argumentation af nogen art - at "alt nok er ok" og bidrager så bare med matematisk viden på totalt rådne in-data. Flot flot.

Kan du ikke se, at når jeg og læseren for eksempel ved, at humanisten Moshers rolle i Best ikke er at "efterbehandle data med matematiske formler", så må jeg tage det som det niveau, dine "undersøgelser" generelt er på?

He has written and maintains several R packages devoted to analyzing temperature and climate data with open source tools

Frank´s article: 'If the BEST project aimed to show something better than we have already from GISS, HadCRU or NOAA, then BEST should simply have asked for all the temperature datasets from the national Meteorological Institutes. Why not?"

Mosher : The aim of the project was to use data that was PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE.
There are roughly 40K stations where the data can be downloaded and checked by
citizens. Open data.

Don Monfort | June 28, 2014 at 2:35 pm | Frank Lansner has done some interesting unpaid work:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/

Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014 at 5:23 pm | well anthony confirmed that we dont use zombie data.
good enough for you

Don Monfort | June 28, 2014 at 5:40 pm | Did Frank say that you used zombie data? My recollection is that he was pointing out that there is a lot of extant raw data that you didn't use. He gave specifics. You dismissed Frank with a wave of your hand with this BS:" Its interesting to see Phil Jones approach ressurrected at WUWT."

You want to fault Frank for working hard to get data? It is either useful data or it isn't. Has nothing to do with Jones. You failed to address Frank's criticisms of BEST. I am sure you could do a lot better. Just say you don't care.

Tonyb | June 28, 2014 at 5:55 pm | Don

Frank is carrying out a very useful project.

I went to the met office on his behalf to try to gather some data for him. It was nowhere near as straightforward as I had hoped. I expect frank will update his findings at some point but it's an uphill struggle to pull together a comprehensive data base with the limited resources sceptics have.

Tonyb

Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014 at 9:00 pm | Don

its simple.

1. Frank has never provided me with a source of his new data
2. Last time I looked at one of his posts he TOTALLY BOTCHED
the download of data. There was no thank you steve.
3. Many people email me data or data sources. from a dude who
sent me his grandmothers diary to a researcher who uncovered
a long forgotten record.

The proceedure is simple.

1. EMAIL ME THE FRICKING LINK TO THE DATA
2. OR, have the owner of the data SUBMIT IT TO ISTI

that way the data can be preserved and maintained

But dont expect me to read a post by known data klutz
( sunshine hours did similar shit) and collect data from a blog post.

Nobody remembers how we ridiculed hansen for using some data that wasnt in a proper archive.. why, because we were riducling somebody they hated

Don Monfort | June 29, 2014 at 3:56 pm | Steven,

Frank Lansner wrote:

"For all countries analysed so far, the BEST national data is nearly identical with the coastal trends and the Ocean Air Affected ("OAA") locations. The data from the Ocean Air Shelter ("OAS") stations appears to be completely ignored by the BEST project country after country after country. Just as we saw for HISTALP."

"BEST adjustments leads to the ignoring of the cold trended stations, the stations from valleys (OAS areas). So is it true when BEST claim not to use adjusted data?"

Do you have anything to say about that other than making the ludicrous claim that Frank is using Phil Jones' methods, that someone sent you his grandma's diary, that sunshinehours did whatever, that Frank made a mistake downloading something once, that nobody remembers how you ridiculed Hansen and other irrelevancies?

BEST either ignored the cool trended stations not affected by ocean air and favored the warm trended coastal and ocean air affected stations, or not. Do you need the data that Frank obtained from public sources to know what BEST did?

Frank is trying to liberate data, not hide it. You are supposed to be the Pacman of data. The more the better. Right? You should be encouraging Frank. Have you asked Frank for his data?

I have asked you about this, because it seems to me that Frank may be onto something significant. I respect your knowledge and honest opinions. I don't see why you have an attitude on this one. As I was reading Frank's post, I was anticipating a reasoned, factual rebuttal from Mosher. "Poor Frank," I said to myself.

I have been disappointed. I'll drop it now.

Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 4:06 pm | It would be interesting to see Lansner's own assessment of surface-land global or US warming since 1950. So far this is missing. Are we debating hundredths of a degree here? Without knowing that, there is no way to judge whether this is just petty nitpicking or if it affects the larger debate.

Don Monfort | June 29, 2014 at 4:32 pm | Frank is doing it on his own, jimmy. It might take him a while to get around to the U.S. But why don't you read up on the considerable work that he has already done? And reserve further comment, until you have a clue.

Tonyb | June 29, 2014 at 4:45 pm | Jimd

Don is right, it is well worth spending ten minutes reading franks work.

As I can testify, trying to unearth the information he wanted was more difficult than I expEcted. I spent three hours at the met office looking for the British information he wanted and eventually spoke to the librarian in order to try to discover where the missing information might be located

If this difficulty is replicated it could be years before frank gets round to the US.He deserves some credit and funding for what he is doing.

Tonyb

Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 4:57 pm | It is hard to tell what Lansner thinks he is doing. His so-called ocean sheltered stations are not distinguishable from continental interiors where the warming is currently fastest, but he says it is cooling at the ones he looked at in Europe. Also could he be making the same mistake as Goddard with pre-war raw data that he is emphasizing so much when comparing the 30's to now? His conclusions kind of look like Goddard's ones for the US.

Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 5:05 pm | As far as I can tell, reading between the words, Lansner has gone in with the thesis that all the warming is from the oceans, so that stations that are "sheltered" in some sense should not be warming. However he seems only interested in coastal sheltered stations to prove his thesis, not continental interiors where the warming is lately much faster than the oceans, and I don't know why he ignored them, except that these may disprove his thesis.

Tonyb | June 29, 2014 at 5:16 pm | Jimd

It was an interesting exercise as I located the reports made at the time from a station, the report once it had made it into the monthly regional records, again when it went into the met office year book and again when there was an analysis of the decade.the figures continually changed which made it difficult to know what the real temperature was.

I don't think there is any conspiracy going on but undoubtedly there are lots of different versions of the same record. they varied by several degrees. Perhaps you can clarify why?

Tonyb

Jim D | June 29, 2014 at 5:32 pm | It is possible for individual stations to change perhaps sometimes, but making groups of stations change in concert is much harder, which is why temperature records like CRUTEM4 tend to average over multiple stations in a 5 degree square to get regional values because that removes the noise of local station variations.

Tonyb | June 29, 2014 at 5:48 pm | Jimd

I wish I had thought of it then, but having gone to the effort of locating the original records I should have written doWn the different bersions of the daily temperatures for a specific month and year then I could have produced a variety of graphs for the same period that each would have looked quite different. This is the met office don't forget, it's not some badly kept record in a third world country.

I was looking at pre 1980 figures which is when most stations seemed to have changed to automatic and the nature of the data changes

Tonyb

Don Monfort | June 29, 2014 at 6:38 pm | It's not that hard to tell what Frank is doing, jimmy. Maybe your problem is that you are reading between the words.

"For each country analysed I have made comparison between national temperature trends as published by the "BEST" project and then the OAA and OAS temperature trends from original data. I want to know if BEST data use both the warm trended OAA data and the more cold trended OAS data. In addition, I have made comparisons of ECA&D data versus original for many countries and also HISTALP data versus original.
More info can be found on:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-introduction-267.php"

The detailed explanation of what Frank is doing is all there, jimmy. If you have read it and you still don't get it, you should probably give up. Of course, your lack of understanding wouldn't preclude you from borrowing the old 'someone sent me his grandma's diary' criticism.

Don Monfort | June 29, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Here is Frank talking about what he found in the Alps data, jimmy. Is that far enough inland for you?:

"Fig6
However, the valley stations in best possible shelter against ocean air (OAS) have all been adjusted by ZAMG to show warm temperature trends.

From Original data we can see, that the cold trended stations (OAS) are in fact in a comfortable majority in the Alpine area and I believe ZAMG should explain themselves.
More examples of HISTALP/ZAMG adjustments from many countries:

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-histalp-264.php

More on original Alpine temperature data:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php"

Her hvor de ting jeg har lavet bl.a kritik af BEST diskuteres på Judith Currys site.
Igen, blandet modtagelse af Mosher?

Nielsen, Steven M Mosher er både statistiker og så har han også gjort sig i litteratur.

Steven Mosher har ikke gjort andet end at efterbehandle data han har fået fra BEST. Han har INTET tjekket efter og han har ingen anelse om at han har fået serveret grotesk fordrejede data til sine matematiske formler. Nej, han snyder ikke på vægten men godtager - uden argumentation af nogen art - at "alt nok er ok" og bidrager så bare med matematisk viden på totalt rådne in-data. Flot flot.

Din påstand at jeg siger at han skulle sige at Mosher fusker ER falsk.

Så træk den påstand tilbage.

Nielsen, kan du uddybe hvad det er du mener Moshers konkrete rolle i BEST som humanist er mere præcist?

Din påstand - at jeg siger at Mosher fusker - ER falsk.

Så træk den påstand tilbage.

"The good news is, mid-February is the peak of lake freezing season, so we're almost out of the woods."

Kan det passe at Antarktis havis allerede er begyndt at vokse igen? 21 feb?

Jeg tror at den grafik er forsinket opdateret (og har derfor snydt mig) og altså ikke afspejler et dyk 21 feb, men derimod 17 feb.

Man kan måske sige at genfrysning allerede midt i februar næppe ville ske hvis vitterligt vandende var varme som nogen indædt påstår i det uendelige.