This must give the CRU data a considerable bias towards warming ?

It seems the S hemisphere has been cooling more than the N. This would give an obvious bias to CRU data.

Steve: They make grids and average stations within gridcells.

The phrase ‘filled to the brim’ wasn’t helpful on my part.

It was poisonous and should have resulted in an abject apology on his part once he recovered from whatever he was on.

The rest mostly shows he’s not read anything except warmer sites. (And perhaps a few of the more fetid skeptic sites.) If he wanted to argue the science here, he could / should have done so instead of flying under false colors.

Which raises the obvious question; if the conclusion of catastrophic AGW is forgone, why are Hansen, Mann, et. al. even bothering doing this work? You could say it’s to quantify the effect, but in that case, it’s important to get it right.

There’s no scenario, unless I’m missing something, where slipshod science is better than no science.

As for RC, I seem to remember a post which accused Anthony Watts of photoshopping his surface station photographs. Frequenters of this site are accused of being deniers with an implication that we are similar to “Holocaust deniers”. Anyone disagreeing with Hansen must be in the pay of Big Oil. Erik’s equating the level of retoric on this site verses the RC site shows a definite lack of objectivity. I can’t stand to read RC just because of the level of insulting remarks that I have to wade through.

But inspite of that, the right way to deal with this is to do the science and let it speak for itself.

Steve -

I did notice that you had responded lengthily. I seriously didn’t
want to hijack your blog anymore. It seems a waste of space and energy to
debate the intricate meanings of each of those posts. The phrase ‘filled to the brim’
wasn’t helpful on my part. But you surely must admit from your own survey of
the comments that there is a belief on the part of many of your posters that NASA and
NOAA scientists are manipulating their data to make a false signal. This is an abhorrant idea to me. Accusations on that level need to be backed up by some serious facts. I’m afraid that nothing that has come to light can come close to supporting that attitude. In fact, John V.’s work has shown quite the opposite, in my mind.

On the other hand, your work is clearly of use to the field of climate research. You are aggressive in your pursuit and, as far as I can tell, honest in your approach. I’ve said that in other places. I happen to think this whole approach is misguided in the sense that the signal for global warming cross-cuts many disciplines and is unmistakable at this point. (For instance, the cooling of the stratosphere is fairly conclusive, as far as I can see, and the melting of the polar ice cap is hard to explain any other way.) But I don’t begrudge your right to run with the ball in this way. My statement stands that I will read your blog less often if these attitudes persist, but I won’t stop if you keep pumping out good results. I’ve noticed a general improvement from a month ago, when I first started reading CA.

Now, as far as RealClimate goes, their attitude is rather arrogant and dismissive, but this is of a completely different nature than accusations of professional fraud. You get hurt feelings from the first, but you can go to jail and lose your job from the second. If you saw my post there (my first post), then you will notice that I’m trying to take them to task for posts that I think cross the line. The one post I objected to was someone accusing a ‘skeptic’ of being in the pocket of big business. That accusation was groundless and I tried to point that out.

I appreciate being able to explain my feelings to you personally in email, rather than in the firestorm of blogs. You can post this if you think it will help out in some manner. I won’t hide my feelings on this important matter.

Erik

I do not accept most of this response. He was the one who made the allegations of ““accusing [Hansen] of systematically committing scientific fraud over a period of 20 years.” When confronted with the fact that his evidence did not support his accusation, he now says:

It seems a waste of space and energy to debate the intricate meanings of each of those posts.

There’s nothing “intricate” about the fact that none of the posts “accused [Hansen] of systematically committing scientific fraud over a period of 20 years.” Erik observes “Now, as far as RealClimate goes, their attitude is rather arrogant and dismissive, but this is of a completely different nature than accusations of professional fraud. You get hurt feelings from the first, but you can go to jail and lose your job from the second.” Of course. I refrain from making allegations of fraud, even in the face of Mann saying that he didn’t calculate the verification r2 statistic as that “would be a foolish and incorrect thing to do”. Maybe Mann had just forgotten what he’d done and this was an innocent misrepresentation. I merely observed that it was a misrepresentation – the motive for the misrepresentation is irrelevant to me and so I haven’t speculated on it. Perhaps Erik can explain all of this to us.

Similarly Hansen’s switch from SHAP to FILNET accounting without disclosure. I noted explicitly that it was possible that this switch had been planned for months ahead of time and that the re-ranking of 1998 was simply an adventitious outcome. It’s possible. Perhaps Erik Ramberg can explain this to us.

I do not claim that these particular events have any bearing on whether Arctic ice is melting or the cooling of the stratosphere. But equally the situation with the Arctic ice doesn’t mean that Mann’s verification r2 is now suddenly significant or that his nondisclosure of adverse results was justified.

Ok John. It’s probably not right to ask you to judge the veracity of Erik’s statements. So,
It was wrong of me to try to drag you into it. I apologize. I guess I was a little heated since
I didnt respond when he had singled out one of my more moderate reponses as evidence of rampant
slander here.

MOSH pit On.

Still, there is something that bothers me about Eriks RC post. Here is what he claimed.

1. I ( erik) accused the CA blog of being full of bogus fraud claims.
2. This created Heated debate.
3. Comment #6 on RC is a low blow like CA resorts to.
4. Please address it.

DO YOU SEE THE GAME.

NOW, lets look at this little effwitt piece of garbage logic.

1. Yes erik did accuse CA of this. Without any evidence. And when asked to produce
evidence he cited posts he thought NO ONE WOULD CHECK. He was proven wrong.
Now, he repeats his false claim on RC. Now Mosh pit will not ignore.

2. He claims his post created a heated debate on CA? It did not. It produced responses from SteveMc
to ask him to document his claim, Oh he got a measured reposnse from from SamU.
I IGONORED the slight against me. A fair rendition would be this:

” I accused CA of being full to the brim with claims of fraud against hansen. None
of my claims survived scrunity. Some people were downright nice to me in spite
of my misrepresentations. Other people ignored my slander.”

3. On RC he calls comment #6 offensive when it was not offensive. WHy? Because
he Knows his complaint will not be taken seriously by RC. And he wants to appear
“fair” after he made false claims here. So ERIK complains over here about my comment
which wasnt OFFENSIVE and then He complains
over at RC about comment #6 which isnt offensive. I believe I shall invent a term
for trolls who haunt two blogs. [ Self snipping ] [ self snipping again]

Erik is trying to construct a narrative in which he is the peacemaker of the playground.
And what will he do if you don’t abide by his notion
of civility? he will stop reading.

Lets dig a little deeper into Erik logic.

“Steve – I think Hansen’s attitude might have something to do with the fact that your blog is filled to the
brim with entries accusing him of systematically committing scientific fraud over a period of 20 years. ”

1. Rationalize Hansen’s behavior. SteveMC asked for data and methods politely. we asked on RC politely.
Then some used FOIA. Then we used public humiliation namely, SteveMc found mistakes.

“I’m new to this, so don’t know all about the possible “He started it!” scenarios there are.
But for a newcomer scientist, trying to understand the skeptic position, I’m pretty appalled. Erik”

2. I don’t know the history BUT I’m appalled at SteveMC. Hmm. I know enough of the history to excuse
Hansen, but not enough to understand your position. AND, as a scientist I’m willing to AVOID
understanding the history, and feel appalled. And threaten that I will stop reading.

Indulgent self satisified manipulative TWIT. Sorry, that last was a random comment referring to no one
in particular. I find it ironic that someone who excuse their opinion because of lack of knowledge
( I dont know the history) would threaten to stop aquiring the thing they lack, but then again not
so suprised.

MOSH PIT off.

Now, onto crater lake.

Crater lake ( now, I’ll get to go back and look at it with OpenTemp ) was dumped ENTIRELY. I looked at Lake spaulding
( anthony had surveyed the site ) and the early century cooling trend had all the hallmarks of an artificial process.
It was damn near linear. You can go look at my coments on RC. “hey, I see hansens point here” But I
couldn’t get ANYTHING from them, and they didnt realize that I was complaining about Early century cooling being removed!
THAT typifies the intransegience. ( it was also a subtle check I was doing on their ethics, If I ask for
data that HURTS my case and they won’t give it up, then that’s an indicia of agendas)

Also, I Just wanted an explanation for Crater lake. Hansens text said nothing. When I compared it
to its nearest neighbor the temps ran up and down together like they should. But Crater lake station
is at high alt and really cold. Plus, This site gets more snowfall than any other site in the Lower 48.

Let me draw a contrast here. I ran Opentemp on all 1221 stations. I asked you about the “stations not in the mesh”
You answered my questions, coastal cities.. the mask you built. Cool. good answer. I get it. I Moved on.

Ah crap, I promised I wouldnt get heated about this. no more erik comments from me

As for your post, it’s really none of my business. The only part I would find mildly offensive is “Crater Lake? I disagree. I think he didnt like how cold it was there.” This could be interpreted as you saying “Hansen removed it only because it would not fit his desired result”. That’s how I read it the first time.

Of course, I know that’s not what you meant. That interpretation would not even make sense because removing a cold station from the early record actually reduces the warming trend.

In eriks post he claimed that CA was full to the brim with claims of FRAUD against hansen.

he was asked to produce evidence. He cited two threads. I just checked all of his cites from one thread
I have not checked the others. I found out that one of my posts was on his list of offensive posts.

SO I ask you to decide. Was erik telling the truth when he cited my post as an example of accusing
hansen of FRAUD. Erik cited these posts as OFFFENSIVE:

Hansen frees the code: #3,25,31,55,73,82,93. I am post 93.

Some back ground, When we started looking at this I started positing to RC and signed off every request
for code or data with “free the code” One area I was particualrly intersted was a paragraph
in hansens 2001 paper where he described excising part of the record 5 california stations because
they were abnormally COOL. I asked gavin a couple time for basic data. What test was done to exclude these
stations? What stations were they compared to. I got the stonewall or RTFR. The funny THing was if you remove
cool stations in the early 1900, you diminish trend. For me that wasnt the issue. The issue was
1. Why these stations?
2. What was the test?
3. What sites were the comparisons made to.

Anyway here is the comment I made. Erik found this Offensive. Was he right?
( cause I’ve said way more offense stuff than this!)

“RE 89.

In Hansen 2001, Hansen described how he “amended” 5 northern California Stations
because they showed cooling.

From memory these stations were willows, electra, lake spaulding, I FORGOT, and Crater
Lake NPS HQ.

ok… here is Hansen 2001

The strong cooling that exists in the unlit station data in the northern California region is not found in either
the periurban or urban stations either with or without any of the adjustments. Ocean temperature data for the same
period, illustrated below, has strong warming along the entire West Coast of the United States. This suggests the
possibility of a flaw in the unlit station data for that small region. After examination of all of the stations in this
region, five of the USHCN station records were altered in the GISS analysis because of inhomogeneities with
neighboring stations (data prior to 1927 for Lake Spaulding, data prior to 1929 for Orleans, data prior to 1911 for
Electra Ph, data prior of 1906 for Willows 6W, and all data for Crater Lake NPS HQ were omitted), so these
apparent data flaws would not be transmitted to adjusted periurban and urban stations. If these adjustments were not
made, the 100-year temperature change in the United States would be reduced by 0.01°C.

I looked at lake spaulding in the period of interest. I would agree with Hansen. The data is messed
up to use a technical term. it cools relative to other sites ( like Tahoe city ) in a nearly
linear fashion. That is, prior to 1927 or so, lake spaulding undergoes a nearly linear ( I think my r2
was abve .9) cooling. This might be indicative an instrument failing. After 1927 or so it tracks
( correlates) with the nearby stations.

Crater Lake? I disagree. I think he didnt like how
cold it was there. The chart is not weird its just cold. I compared crater Lake to surrounding
sites and if you adjust for lapse rates ( crater lake is high Alt) then the time series of nearby sites
are in lockstep with Crater lake.

Note, The code and the text dont document this Exclusion principal.

Its ad hoc. I looked at 2 of the 5 cases. 1 made sense, the other was a Hansenism.”

SO, I QUOTE hansen. Hansen says he excised these site records. I checked 2. In one I say I agree
with him. In the other I say I disagreed. The EXCLUSION of crater lake makes no sense to me.
I asked gavin on a couple of occasions for the reason. no reponse. Now, it doesnt matter for
for AGW. I NEVER accused him of fraud in this case. It’s a hansenism. Incomplete documentation.

Anyway, The other thing I found funy was that Erik claimed his comment generated “heated debate”
Somebody, needs to toss him into the mosh pit someday, so he gets a sense of real heat.

Anyway.. I’ll get back to charts in a couple days. I have to make money today