Comments on: Quality Control – Jones and Hansen Style

By: Orland CA and the New Adjustments « Climate Audit

Orland CA and the New Adjustments « Climate Audit — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:09:56 +0000

[...] station, discussed at the outset of surfacestations.org, discussed at WUWT here and CA here in early [...]

By: Hide the Decline – Data at Orland is Chopped | Digging in the Clay

Hide the Decline – Data at Orland is Chopped | Digging in the Clay — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:41:25 +0000

[...] of investigating alteration of Orland data by Steve McIntyre, with his customary thoroughness, here and here. Figure 2. Orland USHCN raw data/GISS homogenized data blink comparison. Animation [...]

By: JerryB

JerryB — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:32:54 +0000

A sample of GHCN mean adjusted data sometimes matching USHCN SHAP, sometimes USHCN FILNET, sometimes both, and somtimes neither: pick your adjustment

By: JerryB

JerryB — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:35:23 +0000

steve,

Bite your tongue, or fingertips, or something.

I expect to write to Peterson and Vose to inquire what USHCN adjustments are
“supposed” to be included in the GHCN adjusted mean file. I expect to mention
examples of GHCN adjusted numbers which do not match any USHCN numbers to within
0.1 C.

We shall see what we shall see when we see it.

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:24:16 +0000

JerryB.

Since you are one of the resident gods of climate data… it might be cool to
do a diagram of sorts… starting at the sources… elabrating on the process steps
and then detailing the outputs.

By: JerryB

JerryB — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:28:20 +0000

In the course of this thread the question arose “what USHCN adjustments are
included in GHCN the adjusted mean file”? Previously, I had thought that the
USHCN FILNET adjustments were included, but upon looking at Marysville station
data, I concluded that SHAP, but not FILNET, adjustments were included.

Today, pursuing a notion of a temporary substitute for the GISS special USHCN
file with SHAP, but not FILNET, adjustments, I must conclude that the GHCN
adjusted mean file sometimes include SHAP, some times FILNET, sometimes both,
and sometimes something other than either.

More anon.

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:31:23 +0000

Shen94

Might be a paper SteveMc is interested in after the crosswrd puzzles are handled

By: UC

UC — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:47:03 +0000

#107

Now, I will say That I enjoy whipping out the 60 site claim.

And the original 60 site claim from Shen94 is (my emph)

In spite of the limitations just alluded to we feel that the magnitude of the sampling error is probably small compared to the other errors in the budget once the number of well-distributed stations is above about 60 and the optimal weighting is applied.

This was based on UK gridded data (Jones). Note that they had some problems with Hansen data,

We note of course that the correlation to the U.K. data at fine scale is not necessarily the same as with perfect data. In fact, we correlated the coefficients of the zeroth harmonics in T11 truncation derived from the U.K. data with the Hansen-Lebedeff data and found the correlation coefficient to be only 0.93! This is presumably because the two groups used different means of removing biases.

By: Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:09:25 +0000

Bender, you say:

Place your guesstimates now. I will collate them along with the A in AGW guesses.

Not mine, but the guess of the CET (Table 6 in Parker et al 1992): zero up until ~1980, a sudden jump to 0.1°C in ~1980, no change until ~1995, a sudden jump to 0.2°C in ~1995, no change since then …

This works out to about 1°C/century … but only since 1980. Go figure …

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:07:08 +0000

re 108.

You can get the data online going back to 2002.

SteveMC has shown how to scrape it.

BUT, todays focus is reverse engineering H87, H99, H2001.

No cmplaints here