USHCN Raw data adjusted to be even more raw!

[marchesarosa]

Revised “raw” data. An oxymoron?

USHCN (United States Historical Climate Network)
Wisconsin raw temperature data alterations

July 2009 data download vs January 2010 download from data.giss.nasa.gov



Here are some interesting graphics showing how RAW data evolve over time.


www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm

Hmmm!

Note how the more recent Jan 2010 version of the supposedly RAW database has often adjusted the historic data shown in the July 2009 version DOWNWARD and the more recent data UPWARDS to create an upward trend WHERE NONE ACTUALLY EXISTS.

Clever these climate "scientists", eh?

Some of the raw data are clearly more cooked than others.


Courtesy of Mike McMillan on Chiefio here
chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/ushcn-vs-ushcn-version-2-more-induced-warmth/

[marchesarosa]

[sciencebiker]

Err those are two different data sets. The graphs compare the USHCN dataset with Version 2 which has been adjusted using a different methodology. You would expect differences but it doesn't really matter because:
a) Researchers will work with one dataset or the other - not mix them (that would be a schoolboy error).
b) Whether you use the V2 dataset or the original you will still record very similar trends (mean differences) and absolute differences (max-min).
c) As a researcher you can pick which dataset to work with, so you can always select the one which shows the least warming if you want. I haven't yet done a pointwise comparison of the v1 and v2 datasets - I normally work with the HadCrut data. The purpose and methodology of the V2 dataset is explained below:
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/

If you want (as most people still do) to work with the old V1 dataset then you can look at the effect of the various corrections applied to the data :


You will notice that there is very little change in the trend. Even with this raw data, the rising trend is still evident.

[marchesarosa]

The graphs compare the USHCN dataset with Version 2 which has been adjusted using a different methodology. You would expect differences but it doesn't really matter

So which of them is the "Authentic" one, Biker?

I thought science was about accurate measurement?

Is this stuff just work in progress? Do they throw away the old stuff when they have finished scaring enough people with it?

Don't talk to us about grids here. We know all about grids. We read the Musings of Chiefio!

We know how cold mountainous Bolivia's temps are derived from the beach in Peru and the Amazon rain forests and we are not impressed.

I use the royal We, of course.

We know that the emptiest places on earth with respect to surface stations are spun as having the most rapidly rising temps. eg Antarctica and the Arctic.

There are hundreds of grid boxes you think are so informative that just don't contain a single measuring station at all.

[sciencebiker]

Jan 16, 2010 12:39:57 GMT marchesarosa said:

The graphs compare the USHCN dataset with Version 2 which has been adjusted using a different methodology. You would expect differences but it doesn't really matter

So which of them is the "Authentic" one, Biker?

The question has no meaning. What do you regard as authentic? The raw uncorrected data? That will be horribly inaccurate due to routine data interference from station visits, station moves, the Urban Island Effect which you claim is so important and so on.
So, is the corrected data authentic once these factors have been taken into account?
Do you want absolute temperatures or anonalies? (I strongly suggest the latter). All data has to be processed in science. Raw data is, as it says, raw.
It doesn't really matter, though, since whatever dataset you want can be downloaded and you will see, as per the graph above, that the trends are robust across all the datasets with very minor variations.

I thought science was about accurate measurement?

No, it is about measurement not contradicting theory. 'Accurate' is another problem - there is no such thing. Every measurement has a range of error and/or uncertainty attached. Use a ruler and your error is probably +/- 1mm or so. Use a vernier caliper and it might be down to 0.001mm. You'll never get it to zero though. That is why the most important thing is knowing your error bars - even if the range of potential error is large, you can then still do meaningful science by working out projections for the whole range of data within the error limits.

Is this stuff just work in progress? Do they throw away the old stuff when they have finished scaring enough people with it?

No the V1 records will be maintained but not updated. They therefore form a coherent record for the period 1850-present. The new V2 dataset method will be used for all new readings.

Don't talk to us about grids here. We know all about grids. We read the Musings of Chiefio!

Then I'm afraid you probably don't know all about them. Chiefio iis probably a very nice chap, but in the end he isn't a scientist, he's an economy grad turned computer geek - rather like me. Science requires serious amounts of training and although I have some admiration for anyone trying to do it themselves, it isn't really possible in isolation. You need interaction with professional colleagues to function in modern science (in just about any discipline), not to mention peer-review.
A quick flit around chiefio's site reveals some fairly basic misunderstandings and mistakes I'm afraid.

We know how cold mountainous Bolivia's temps are derived from the beach in Peru and the Amazon rain forests and we are not impressed.

Well, the basic allegation can be put in several parts:
a) GHCN has no current stations in bolivia and use data from stations op to 1.4km distant.
True. Data for this region has always been pretty sparse and the last couple of stations were judged unusable in 1987 I think, although chiefio reckons 1990 - I'll check.
b) There is no data for Bolivia
Untrue - the CRU set has 17 Bolivian stations.
c) GISS or GISSTEMP has deliberately got rid of the Bolivian stations.
Not true. Neither has any say over the GHCN stations.
d) There is some conspiracy to drop cold stations.
I find that hard to believe. Why would they - the temperature of the region is unimportant to the data - only the variation matters for
The HADCRUT station data from Bolivia is freely available below:
www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html
I haven't crunched it yet, but I will if I get time later.

Now, I'm not going to go off half-cocked and give you my explanation for the GISTEMP data showing warming in Bolivia. I'm pretty sure I know what the answer is, and that the CRUT3 data will validate it, but my opinion is worth no more than Chiefios - so I've asked Hadley to answer some questions on this and when they get back to me, then I'll get back to you with more.

If there is any jiggery-pokery I want to know, and I can assure you that I'll pass on whatever I find - even if it supports your beliefs.

[marchesarosa]

It takes all sorts and climatology consists of very many disciplines, Biker. Chiefio has his place as a stalwart digger at the coal face of science.

Unfortunately, at the moment, at the very top of all the -ologists and calling the shots are the ideologists, specially selected for preferment and reward by the IPCC and state governments.

Until they are swept away, there is no hope of a genuinely informative science of the climate that is worthy of respect.

[sciencebiker]

Jan 16, 2010 16:48:08 GMT marchesarosa said:

Unfortunately, at the moment, at the very top of all the -ologists and calling the shots are the ideologists, specially selected for preferment and reward by the IPCC and state governments.

Until they are swept away, there is no hope of a genuinely informative science of the climate that is worthy of respect.

Conspiracy theory is seldom correct and in this case it is bonkers. There is absolutely no incentive for world leaders to sign up for AGW. It is political suicide. Do you really think Obama wants to tell his countrymen to leave their 5 litre SUVs at home?
You also keep making rather daft allegations about the IPCC. They don't have it in their gift to make climate scientists rich. The scientists who sit on the working parties get out of pocket expenses and their normal wage - that's it. Most of them sit for a few meetings and that's it. The secretariat is 10 technocrats and they employ some support and admin staff. My college is a bigger outfit than the IPCC.
The scientists who work for it are the top people in their field - experts.

[sciencebiker]

If chiefeo had spent a few mins digging for data he would have found
a) The HadCrut3 data set including the Bolivian 17 stations, as above
and
b) The local weather service with 37 recording stations of various ages going back to the 1960s.

In other words a shed-load of data. The HADCrut3 maps already have the Bolivian data and the weather/climate data is freely available on the web:
www.tutiempo.net/en/Climate/Bolivia/BO.html

So, the idea that the yanks would ditch stations from the GISTEMP dataset without good reason seems daft to me - why hand the advantage to the rival CRUT3 dataset?
Climatologists like to think that their dataset is the best, so there must have been a damned good reason, and it makes no sense to suppose it was to hide temperatures, since they new fine well the data is available anyway.
This is just more smoke that the blogsphere has jumped on uncritically and made into a big thing.

I'm still waiting for the Hadley crew to email back but I can already hear them laughing at this latest 'conspiracy'.