<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GHCN Adjusted Data Isn&#039;t Good Enough for D&#039;Arrigo et al</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 19:12:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87785</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 14:08:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#6 John Nicklin
You&#039;re not being paranoid if they really are out to get you!

We really miss John Daly; he seemed to be prescient in his proactive archiving of data from various weather stations.  With all of the dubious and seemingly arbitrary &quot;adjustments&quot; taking place, most of which seem to produce convenient results, why isn&#039;t there some discussion of limiting the use of data to those from stations that can be shown to have remained rural.  Even if these stations have been moved, as long as the rural character has essentially been maintained, wouldn&#039;t a clearer record be provided?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#6 John Nicklin<br />
You&#8217;re not being paranoid if they really are out to get you!</p>
<p>We really miss John Daly; he seemed to be prescient in his proactive archiving of data from various weather stations.  With all of the dubious and seemingly arbitrary &#8220;adjustments&#8221; taking place, most of which seem to produce convenient results, why isn&#8217;t there some discussion of limiting the use of data to those from stations that can be shown to have remained rural.  Even if these stations have been moved, as long as the rural character has essentially been maintained, wouldn&#8217;t a clearer record be provided?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DocMartyn</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87784</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DocMartyn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 12:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;This whole thing is sufficiently important that that&#039;s exactly what should be done. Monitor temperature, pressure, precipitation, windspeed, and local CO2 concentration at a couple thousand trees. Then systematically start varying conditions. Give one batch more CO2, or more water…&quot;

That would require expirements based on something other than a computer, and so would not be acceptable. Even the measurement of the effects of altitude, temperature and water vapor content on the absorbtion of IR by CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be best elucidated by computer modeling, rather than direct measurement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This whole thing is sufficiently important that that&#8217;s exactly what should be done. Monitor temperature, pressure, precipitation, windspeed, and local CO2 concentration at a couple thousand trees. Then systematically start varying conditions. Give one batch more CO2, or more water…&#8221;</p>
<p>That would require expirements based on something other than a computer, and so would not be acceptable. Even the measurement of the effects of altitude, temperature and water vapor content on the absorbtion of IR by CO2 in the atmosphere appears to be best elucidated by computer modeling, rather than direct measurement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87783</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Al]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 04:11:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[EW,

This whole thing is sufficiently important that that&#039;s exactly what should be done. Monitor temperature, pressure, precipitation, windspeed, and local CO2 concentration at a couple thousand trees. Then systematically start varying conditions. Give one batch more CO2, or more water...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>EW,</p>
<p>This whole thing is sufficiently important that that&#8217;s exactly what should be done. Monitor temperature, pressure, precipitation, windspeed, and local CO2 concentration at a couple thousand trees. Then systematically start varying conditions. Give one batch more CO2, or more water&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EW</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87782</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EW]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 21:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87782</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These are the moments I&#039;m glad that my research does not in any way depend on global or local temperature measurements. Maybe the only possibility of getting any ring/temp relationships is to have a thermometer attached to each tree studied ;-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are the moments I&#8217;m glad that my research does not in any way depend on global or local temperature measurements. Maybe the only possibility of getting any ring/temp relationships is to have a thermometer attached to each tree studied <img src='http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87781</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 18:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Steve: What&#039;s the full cite for Wilson&#039;s paper?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve: What&#8217;s the full cite for Wilson&#8217;s paper?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Frank</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87780</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pat Frank]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 17:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#12 -- &quot;&lt;em&gt;if there are problems with the predictand data, then it will affect our calibrations.&lt;/em&gt;&quot;

There&#039;s an abuse of the term. You aren&#039;t doing calibrations, Rob, you&#039;re all gerrymandering conclusions.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#12 &#8212; &#8220;<em>if there are problems with the predictand data, then it will affect our calibrations.</em>&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s an abuse of the term. You aren&#8217;t doing calibrations, Rob, you&#8217;re all gerrymandering conclusions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chriscafe</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87779</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chriscafe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 17:47:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry stuffed up the quote.

Last sentence is my comment.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry stuffed up the quote.</p>
<p>Last sentence is my comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chriscafe</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87778</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chriscafe]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 17:45:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Re 12:

&lt;blockquote&gt;However, this does highlight an important issue. Tree-ring based reconstructions are “at the mercy” of the instrumental data and if there are problems with the predictand data, then it will affect our calibrations.

I would think that the whole theoretical approach would require rethinking rather than your calibrations.&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re 12:</p>
<blockquote><p>However, this does highlight an important issue. Tree-ring based reconstructions are “at the mercy” of the instrumental data and if there are problems with the predictand data, then it will affect our calibrations.</p>
<p>I would think that the whole theoretical approach would require rethinking rather than your calibrations.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Norman</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87777</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Norman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 13:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Steve&lt;/strong&gt;,

I sent you an e-mail with the Environment Canada data for Dawson attached.  I also cc&#039;d John.  Let me know if you did not get it and if you want it.  You have my e-mail.

It looks like E.C. believes that only the annual average temperatures between 1977 and 2001 are valid.

Note to some others: Dawson is only at 64.2°N and therefore is not in the Arctic (&gt;66°33&#039;N).  However it is probably included in the &quot;Arcticish&quot; locations used to suggest the Arctic is warming (as opposed to the actual Arctic stations which do not show the warming (or as much warming anyway)).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Steve</strong>,</p>
<p>I sent you an e-mail with the Environment Canada data for Dawson attached.  I also cc&#8217;d John.  Let me know if you did not get it and if you want it.  You have my e-mail.</p>
<p>It looks like E.C. believes that only the annual average temperatures between 1977 and 2001 are valid.</p>
<p>Note to some others: Dawson is only at 64.2°N and therefore is not in the Arctic (&gt;66°33&#8242;N).  However it is probably included in the &#8220;Arcticish&#8221; locations used to suggest the Arctic is warming (as opposed to the actual Arctic stations which do not show the warming (or as much warming anyway)).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JerryB</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/05/07/ghcn-adjusted-data-isnt-good-enough-for-wilson/#comment-87776</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JerryB]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 12:32:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1538#comment-87776</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arrgh!  Let me try that with shorter lines, dropping J-D.

Curiouser and curiouser: GHCN V2 has two sets of temperature data for
Dawson, Y.T. which include the early 20th century.  They differ slightly.
They are each adjusted, but with very different adjustments.  A few
samples below: the leading 0 or 1 is the set number, the first line of
each pair is &quot;raw&quot;, and the second line is adjusted.

  YEAR     JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC   D-J-F   M-A-M   J-J-A   S-O-N     D-N

0 1901  -29.10  -28.40  -11.50   -4.70    6.50   14.00   16.30   12.30    7.60   -2.00  -16.30  -22.20  -27.67   -3.23   14.20   -3.57   -5.07
0 1901  -27.30  -27.90  -12.90   -8.10    1.60    8.60   11.20    8.30    5.50   -1.90  -14.60  -20.00  -26.17   -6.47    9.37   -3.67   -6.73

1 1901  -29.10  -28.40  -11.50   -4.70    6.50   14.00   16.30   12.30    7.60   -2.00  -16.30  -22.20  -27.67   -3.23   14.20   -3.57   -5.07
1 1901  -27.10  -26.20   -9.70   -3.80    6.10   12.60   14.60   10.90    6.60   -2.70  -16.30  -21.10  -25.90   -2.47   12.70   -4.13   -4.95

0 1902  -26.30  -21.70  -21.40   -2.80    7.90   14.40   16.60   13.10    6.10   -1.10  -21.00  -30.10  -23.40   -5.43   14.70   -5.33   -4.87
0 1902  -24.50  -21.20  -22.80   -6.20    3.00    9.00   11.50    9.10    4.00   -1.00  -19.30  -27.90  -21.90   -8.67    9.87   -5.43   -6.53

1 1902  -26.40  -21.80  -21.70   -2.90    7.90   14.50   16.70   13.00    6.10   -1.20  -21.20  -30.20  -23.47   -5.57   14.73   -5.43   -4.93
1 1902  -24.40  -19.60  -19.90   -2.00    7.50   13.10   15.00   11.60    5.10   -1.90  -21.20  -29.10  -21.70   -4.80   13.23   -6.00   -4.82

0 1903  -32.40  -22.80  -14.20   -4.40    6.30   14.90   15.80   13.90    5.80   -6.10  -19.80  -17.70  -28.43   -4.10   14.87   -6.70   -6.09
0 1903  -30.60  -22.30  -15.60   -7.80    1.40    9.50   10.70    9.90    3.70   -6.00  -18.10  -15.50  -26.93   -7.33   10.03   -6.80   -7.76

1 1903  -32.50  -22.90  -14.30   -4.50    6.50   15.00   15.90   13.90    5.90   -6.20  -19.90  -17.80  -28.53   -4.10   14.93   -6.73   -6.11
1 1903  -30.50  -20.70  -12.50   -3.70    6.10   13.60   14.20   12.50    4.90   -6.90  -19.90  -16.70  -26.77   -3.37   13.43   -7.30   -6.00

0 1904  -29.50  -31.50  -19.10    1.30    7.30   12.50   14.20   11.90    2.80   -1.60  -17.50  -16.00  -26.23   -3.50   12.87   -5.43   -5.58
0 1904  -27.70  -31.00  -20.50   -2.10    2.40    7.10    9.10    7.90    0.70   -1.50  -15.80  -13.80  -24.73   -6.73    8.03   -5.53   -7.24

1 1904  -29.70  -31.60  -19.20    1.40    7.30   12.60   14.30   12.00    2.90   -1.70  -17.60  -17.60  -26.37   -3.50   12.97   -5.47   -5.59
1 1904  -27.70  -29.40  -17.40    2.20    6.90   11.20   12.60   10.60    1.90   -2.40  -17.60  -16.50  -24.60   -2.77   11.47   -6.03   -5.48

0 1905  -31.00  -20.70  -11.20    0.80    9.60   15.10   15.20   12.90    4.20   -4.10  -12.00  -23.60  -22.57   -0.27   14.40   -3.97   -3.10
0 1905  -29.20  -20.20  -12.60   -2.60    4.70    9.70   10.10    8.90    2.10   -4.00  -10.30  -21.40  -21.07   -3.50    9.57   -4.07   -4.77

1 1905  -30.20  -21.00  -11.20    0.90    9.70   15.20   15.30   13.00    4.20   -4.60  -12.10  -23.70  -22.93   -0.20   14.50   -4.17   -3.20
1 1905  -28.20  -18.80   -9.40    1.80    9.30   13.80   13.60   11.60    3.20   -5.30  -12.10  -22.60  -21.17    0.57   13.00   -4.73   -3.08]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Arrgh!  Let me try that with shorter lines, dropping J-D.</p>
<p>Curiouser and curiouser: GHCN V2 has two sets of temperature data for<br />
Dawson, Y.T. which include the early 20th century.  They differ slightly.<br />
They are each adjusted, but with very different adjustments.  A few<br />
samples below: the leading 0 or 1 is the set number, the first line of<br />
each pair is &#8220;raw&#8221;, and the second line is adjusted.</p>
<p>  YEAR     JAN     FEB     MAR     APR     MAY     JUN     JUL     AUG     SEP     OCT     NOV     DEC   D-J-F   M-A-M   J-J-A   S-O-N     D-N</p>
<p>0 1901  -29.10  -28.40  -11.50   -4.70    6.50   14.00   16.30   12.30    7.60   -2.00  -16.30  -22.20  -27.67   -3.23   14.20   -3.57   -5.07<br />
0 1901  -27.30  -27.90  -12.90   -8.10    1.60    8.60   11.20    8.30    5.50   -1.90  -14.60  -20.00  -26.17   -6.47    9.37   -3.67   -6.73</p>
<p>1 1901  -29.10  -28.40  -11.50   -4.70    6.50   14.00   16.30   12.30    7.60   -2.00  -16.30  -22.20  -27.67   -3.23   14.20   -3.57   -5.07<br />
1 1901  -27.10  -26.20   -9.70   -3.80    6.10   12.60   14.60   10.90    6.60   -2.70  -16.30  -21.10  -25.90   -2.47   12.70   -4.13   -4.95</p>
<p>0 1902  -26.30  -21.70  -21.40   -2.80    7.90   14.40   16.60   13.10    6.10   -1.10  -21.00  -30.10  -23.40   -5.43   14.70   -5.33   -4.87<br />
0 1902  -24.50  -21.20  -22.80   -6.20    3.00    9.00   11.50    9.10    4.00   -1.00  -19.30  -27.90  -21.90   -8.67    9.87   -5.43   -6.53</p>
<p>1 1902  -26.40  -21.80  -21.70   -2.90    7.90   14.50   16.70   13.00    6.10   -1.20  -21.20  -30.20  -23.47   -5.57   14.73   -5.43   -4.93<br />
1 1902  -24.40  -19.60  -19.90   -2.00    7.50   13.10   15.00   11.60    5.10   -1.90  -21.20  -29.10  -21.70   -4.80   13.23   -6.00   -4.82</p>
<p>0 1903  -32.40  -22.80  -14.20   -4.40    6.30   14.90   15.80   13.90    5.80   -6.10  -19.80  -17.70  -28.43   -4.10   14.87   -6.70   -6.09<br />
0 1903  -30.60  -22.30  -15.60   -7.80    1.40    9.50   10.70    9.90    3.70   -6.00  -18.10  -15.50  -26.93   -7.33   10.03   -6.80   -7.76</p>
<p>1 1903  -32.50  -22.90  -14.30   -4.50    6.50   15.00   15.90   13.90    5.90   -6.20  -19.90  -17.80  -28.53   -4.10   14.93   -6.73   -6.11<br />
1 1903  -30.50  -20.70  -12.50   -3.70    6.10   13.60   14.20   12.50    4.90   -6.90  -19.90  -16.70  -26.77   -3.37   13.43   -7.30   -6.00</p>
<p>0 1904  -29.50  -31.50  -19.10    1.30    7.30   12.50   14.20   11.90    2.80   -1.60  -17.50  -16.00  -26.23   -3.50   12.87   -5.43   -5.58<br />
0 1904  -27.70  -31.00  -20.50   -2.10    2.40    7.10    9.10    7.90    0.70   -1.50  -15.80  -13.80  -24.73   -6.73    8.03   -5.53   -7.24</p>
<p>1 1904  -29.70  -31.60  -19.20    1.40    7.30   12.60   14.30   12.00    2.90   -1.70  -17.60  -17.60  -26.37   -3.50   12.97   -5.47   -5.59<br />
1 1904  -27.70  -29.40  -17.40    2.20    6.90   11.20   12.60   10.60    1.90   -2.40  -17.60  -16.50  -24.60   -2.77   11.47   -6.03   -5.48</p>
<p>0 1905  -31.00  -20.70  -11.20    0.80    9.60   15.10   15.20   12.90    4.20   -4.10  -12.00  -23.60  -22.57   -0.27   14.40   -3.97   -3.10<br />
0 1905  -29.20  -20.20  -12.60   -2.60    4.70    9.70   10.10    8.90    2.10   -4.00  -10.30  -21.40  -21.07   -3.50    9.57   -4.07   -4.77</p>
<p>1 1905  -30.20  -21.00  -11.20    0.90    9.70   15.20   15.30   13.00    4.20   -4.60  -12.10  -23.70  -22.93   -0.20   14.50   -4.17   -3.20<br />
1 1905  -28.20  -18.80   -9.40    1.80    9.30   13.80   13.60   11.60    3.20   -5.30  -12.10  -22.60  -21.17    0.57   13.00   -4.73   -3.08</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
