Comments on: The Talking Points Memo

By: Global Warming Debate - Page 267 - SailNet Community

Global Warming Debate - Page 267 - SailNet Community — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 01:36:10 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Warmest June on record globally....Probable the time the Global Warming B.S. will be surfing again...Al Gore stay away! - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:54:20 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated « Watts Up With That?

Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated « Watts Up With That? — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:14:39 +0000

[...] the above graph, Steve McIntyre suggested in his essay on the subject: The red graphic for the “full data set” had, using the preferred terminology of climate [...]

By: On Climate, Comedy, Copyrights, Cinematography « All About Everthing

On Climate, Comedy, Copyrights, Cinematography « All About Everthing — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 01:15:24 +0000

[...] discussing it on WUWT, Dr. Pielke likely wouldn’t have commented on it, McIntyre wouldn’t have written about it, twice, and thus from all the pickups from those articles, Mr. Sinclair probably wouldn’t have [...]

By: AnonyMoose

AnonyMoose — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:44:13 +0000

If you know how to duplicate the NOAA graph, it might be amusing to see how badly the raw data has to be mangled before it overwhelms the homogenization. I didn’t see links to previous articles where you might have info on duplicating the NOAA graph.

By: On Climate, Comedy, Copyrights, and Cinematography « Watts Up With That?

On Climate, Comedy, Copyrights, and Cinematography « Watts Up With That? — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:48:22 +0000

[...] it on WUWT, Dr. Pielke likely wouldn’t have commented on it, McIntyre wouldn’t have written about it, twice, and thus from all the pickups from those articles, Mr. Sinclair probably wouldn’t [...]

By: Mike C

Mike C — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:36:21 +0000

He made the same mistake JohnV made when he did the same analysis…. he used CRN 1 and 2 stations that are in urban heat islands. If you research the USHCNv2, the authors admit that all UHI is not accounted for by v2. In their paper, they do not say it in those exact terms; they say that the algorithms cannot account for all inhomogeneities where the same inhomogeneity exists in many of the stations in the same series. UHI, in general, is one of three problems with the USHCNv2.

By: Kenneth Fritsch

Kenneth Fritsch — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:06:47 +0000

Before I go back and check my sources and calculations I was hoping that someone here at CA has done some comparison work between Version 1 (USHCN Urban) and Version 2 of the USHCN series.

I found a trend difference between Version 1 and Version 2, but more troubling to me is that none of the 1000 odd USHCN stations that had a complete set of data between 1920-2006 had exactly the same trends for the Version 1 and Version 2. There was in fact a wide range of different trends for the same stations in a number of cases.

If indeed the authors of these series wiped the adjustments clean for the Version 1 and then applied the Version 2 change point adjustments, I would assume that getting exactly the same results would not be very likely. Is that assumption sound reasonable?

If the adjustments can vary the temperature trends as much as I apparently have found for individual stations (there is obviously some averaging out of these differences when all stations are taken into account) then I am curious what that says about the validity of the adjustments. If Version 1, which was used for many years with claims for the validity of the adjustments, can change this much for a newer version with a different adjustment approach, what does that say about the potential of the new version not being accurate?

I suspect an analysis of the stations with the biggest version differences might shed some light on these questions.

By: Hu McCulloch

Hu McCulloch — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:40:42 +0000

RE Steve #63,
Thanks, but I have no plans to use this data myself — I just wanted to look at it, which I can now do.
In any event, if this data has been “homogenized” by making good stations conform to the bad ones and vice-versa, there is no point in anyone’s using it for anything.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:49:43 +0000

Re: steven mosher (#62), almost certainly anomaly before average.