Porto Velho and Londrina are two somewhat similar sized Brazilian cities (populations 335,000 and 500,000 respectively) which have remarkably different Hansen adjustments. One is adjusted up by 2 deg C and one is adjusted down by 2 deg C. It’s pretty strange to see.
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times writes here in a compacted story. Me versus Jor-El. I spent quite a bit of time saying that the errors mattered a lot at the individual station level and were “significant” for U.S. temperature. For example, consider this page at NASA which shows a comparison between temperatures by […]
Bernie has collated the population of the Brazil GHCN stations (used in GISS) located here. OF 20 GHCN/GISS “rural” stations, only 3 currently have populations under 5,000 and some are now cities. Of 7 GHCN/GISS “small” towns, 6 are currently cities.
I’ve loaded R-tables for the dset=1 and dset=2 versions. The R-tables are lists each 7364 long, each item is a station time series. The files are about 8 MB in size. I have a variety of little scripts to retrieve and analyze things. The data is located here: http://data.climateaudit.org/data/giss/giss.dset1.tab http://data.climateaudit.org/data/giss/giss.adj.tab Each file can be downloaded […]
Here’s something interesting: I’ve collated the GISS raw(dset=1) and GISS adjusted (dset=2) versions and then calculated the range of adjustments. The largest positive adjustment was over 8 deg C and the largest negative adjustment is greater than -6 deg C. I separated out the stations that had no adjustments (max adjustments under 0.01 deg C […]
I’ve spent some time (an inordinate amount of time) trying to figure out why GISS uses some GHCN stations and not others. Doing so has required a lot of work on GISS data sets which are nastily organized and with many seemingly ad hoc inclusions, exclusions and sloppinesses. Does any of this matter to world […]
In the discussion of the Tucson weather station, Ben Herman of the U of Arizona observed that there were serious biases with the HO-83 hygrothermometer – introduced in the early 1990s – which was said to be a contributor to the uptick to Tucson values. Although USHCN has implemented adjustments to U.S. data to deal […]
Here’s a discussion of replication policy posted up in the relatively early days of the blog, which I’ve re-posted in light of NASA spokesman Gavin Schmidt’s attempts to justify Hansen’s refusal to provide the source code used in his temperature calculations. It seems that these calculations are important enough to prompt a concern over the […]
Well before the current debate over the value of the near surface temperature record and its many possible biases, and well before Parker’s UHI studies sought to minimize the effect based on windy -vs- non windy days, J. Murray Mitchell published a paper in 1952 titled: On the Causes of Instrumentally Observed Secular Temperature Trends […]
Hansen has followed up his “Lights Out Upstairs” outburst with another outburst dismissing critics as “court jesters” with whom he will have no truck. (Lights Out is now cited on the NASA website.) His new jeremiad re-iterated the position of NASA spokesman Gavin Schmidt that U.S. errors “didn’t matter” because the U.S. was only 2% […]
Climate Audit 
Revkin on the Hansen Fiasco
Andrew Revkin of the New York Times writes here in a compacted story. Me versus Jor-El. I spent quite a bit of time saying that the errors mattered a lot at the individual station level and were “significant” for U.S. temperature. For example, consider this page at NASA which shows a comparison between temperatures by […]