• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

Geckko said:
Well, if I flat out lied in a paper or a report I would consider that fraud.

I think this gives an excellent account of the state of play WRT the UHI. I don't think this part of the science is as settled as claimed.

http://climateaudit.org/2009/01/20/realclimate-and-disinformation-on-uhi/
Click to expand...

And the evidence that anyone "flat out lied" in that paper is?

Your CA link doesn't seem to talk about the papers cited in the CRU response to the Guardian article. It doesn't actually seem to address the existence or magnitude of any UHI effect at all, contenting itself with wondering whether adjustments are made or not.
 
Mikemcc said:
Not necessarily, from what I understand it would be important if we were discussing actual temperatures, but we're not, we're discussing temperature anomalies from a given baseline (61-90 for HadCRUT3). Even if a station was subjected to UHI, this wouldn't make any difference to the anomaly provided the same degree of heating from UHI was also present in the 61-90 period.
Click to expand...

What you would expect to happen for individual sites is there will be a discontinuity when the development occurs. That is, when the local area is developed you will get a noticeable increase in the anomaly, followed by a return to the underlying trend.

GISS searches for such discontinuities by looking for rapid changes in urban sites where the same change doesn’t exist in nearby rural sites. The data for the rural site is then used to bridge the discontinuity for the anomalous site. In addition to filtering out urbanization, this technique also catches a whole array of sensor and site related issues that would not otherwise be noticeable.
 
Mikemcc said:
Not necessarily, from what I understand it would be important if we were discussing actual temperatures, but we're not, we're discussing temperature anomalies from a given baseline (61-90 for HadCRUT3). Even if a station was subjected to UHI, this wouldn't make any difference to the anomaly provided the same degree of heating from UHI was also present in the 61-90 period.
Click to expand...
Certainly, but that's exactly the point.

The "made up data" was in China, during the Mao clusterfork. The stations were rural, and wound up later in the middle of huge cities. Today China has a hundred cities with more than 1M people, and half the population has left the countryside.

These stations if an accurate history was available should show a marked UHI.
 
fsol said:
And the evidence that anyone "flat out lied" in that paper is?

Your CA link doesn't seem to talk about the papers cited in the CRU response to the Guardian article. It doesn't actually seem to address the existence or magnitude of any UHI effect at all, contenting itself with wondering whether adjustments are made or not.
Click to expand...

A lie is a statement of something that isn't true.

The paper claimed that the sites used had complete historical information on siting and changes etc.

It is an uncontested fact that this was not true. In fact a large prportion had absolutely no information on siting changes or even actual location.
 
Last edited:
Geckko said:
A lie is a statement of something that isn't true.

The paper claimed that the sites used had complete historical information on siting and changes etc.

It is an uncontested fact that this was not true. In fact a large prportion had absolutely no information on siting changes or even actual location.
Click to expand...

You seem to be having difficulty with the word "evidence." Or at the very least finding some to back up your statement.
 
Geckko said:
A lie is a statement of something that isn't true.

The paper claimed that the sites used had complete historical information on siting and changes etc.

It is an uncontested fact that this was not true. In fact a large prportion had absolutely no information on siting changes or even actual location.
Click to expand...
A lie is a statement of something that you know isn't true.
A mistake is a statement of something that you are told is true (or assume is true) but turns out to be a lie.

The paper states that the 42 pairs of sites that they used from the US Department of Energy and PRC Academy of Science Joint Project dataset had complete histories for 1954 to 1983.

It is an uncontested fact that this was not true.

What you have to do now is give the evidence that lead you to imply that the authors "flat out lied", i.e. that before the paper was published in 1990 they knew that the histories were incomplete.

If you have no evidence then just say so.

Then there is the fact that their paper
Jones, P.D., Groisman, P.Ya., Coughlan, M., Plummer, N., Wang, W-C. and Karl, T.R., 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172.
​
has been updated with using more extensive data and gives similiar results
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
​
Thus the incomplete histories did not affect the conclustions drawn from the data.
 
This is called "Making up data the good old way".

It's part of Hiding the Decline, you see.
 
mhaze said:
This is called "Making up data the good old way".

It's part of Hiding the Decline, you see.
Click to expand...
This is called "Trusting the data you are given without going to absurd lengths to check it out, e.g. visiting every weather station in the world to read their history".

It's part of Doing Science, you see.

Another part of science is that when you find that the data you were given was incomplete, you get more and better data and verify that incompleteness of the data has no effect on the results. That was done in a 2008 paper with using more extensive data and gives similiar results
Jones, P.D., Lister, D.H. and Li, Q., 2008: Urbanization effects in large-scale temperature records, with an emphasis on China. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16122, doi:10.1029/2008/JD009916.
​
 
mhaze said:
This is called "Making up data the good old way".

It's part of Hiding the Decline, you see.
Click to expand...

What decline are you talking about? 'cos you bring it up as an answer to a lot of things. Are you talking about the same decline each time, or is it a different decline each time? Because the decline that they were "hiding" is a pretty specific thing.
 
Reality Check said:
This is called "Trusting the data you are given without going to absurd lengths to check it out, e.g. visiting every weather station in the world to read their history".

It's part of Doing Science, you see.
Click to expand...

It sounds a lot more like GiGo than science to me.
 
fsol said:
What decline are you talking about? 'cos you bring it up as an answer to a lot of things. Are you talking about the same decline each time, or is it a different decline each time? Because the decline that they were "hiding" is a pretty specific thing.
Click to expand...
He'd have to understand it before he could know specifically what he's referring to. Without understanding, expecting him to use the quote correctly is just too much.

A
 
fsol said:
You seem to be having difficulty with the word "evidence." Or at the very least finding some to back up your statement.
Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse.

There is a journal published paper laying out the evidence very clearly. (Keenan, Energy and Environment)

The claims were made in the paper. That is a fact.

The (eventually) revealed data shows that the claims in the paper could never have been true.
 
Reality Check said:
What you have to do now is give the evidence that lead you to imply that the authors "flat out lied", i.e. that before the paper was published in 1990 they knew that the histories were incomplete.

If you have no evidence then just say so.
Click to expand...


Is your real name Kafka?

There are no station histories. Are you saying I have to prove that the authors knew there were no station histories when they claimed there was?

That is absurd beyond belief.

Let them produce the station histories that led them to believe the claime was true. In absence of them they made up the claim. They lied.

As it is, we have the exact opposite. Evidence that histories do not exist and did not exist at the time.
 
Last edited:
Geckko said:
Don't be obtuse.

There is a journal published paper laying out the evidence very clearly. (Keenan, Energy and Environment)

The claims were made in the paper. That is a fact.

The (eventually) revealed data shows that the claims in the paper could never have been true.
Click to expand...

That wasn't difficult was it? But I still don't see the evidence that anyone flat out lied or that this is uncontested.

Asking for evidence to back up your claim is being obtuse? Weird.
 
fsol said:
That wasn't difficult was it? But I still don't see the evidence that anyone flat out lied or that this is uncontested.

Asking for evidence to back up your claim is being obtuse? Weird.
Click to expand...

It's exactly your method of asking for evidence that Keenan and others did with Jones/Wang, and Wang never produced the original data.

So you are asking for evidence that the investigation into whether someone had evidence for their claims showed that they had no evidence.

Which is the subject of the paper that Keenan wrote, isn't it?
 
Geckko said:
Is your real name Kafka?

There are no station histories. Are you saying I have to prove that the authors knew there were no station histories when they claimed there was?

That is absurd beyond belief.

Let them produce the station histories that led them to believe the claime was true. In absence of them they made up the claim. They lied.

As it is, we have the exact opposite. Evidence that histories do not exist and did not exist at the time.
Click to expand...

Yes, this turns science upside down. One is supposed to believe the work of scientists who cannot or will not produce their raw data for confirmation, replication and other work.

But even if one held that view, in the case of Jones/Wang and the investigation by Keenan it would be impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom