Monthly Archives: September 2007

Climate Insensitivity and AR(1) Models

Tamino’s guest post at RC deals with global mean temperature and AR(1) processes. AR(1) is actually mentioned very often in climate science literature, see for example its use in the Mann corpus (refs (1,2,3,4). Almost as often something goes wrong (5,6,7). But this time we have something very special, as Tamino agrees at realclimate that […]

World Conference on Research Integrity to Foster Responsible Research

The World Conference on Research Integrity convened in Portugal from 16 to Sept 19. They refer to two incidents – the misrepresentation of the examination of station history in China and the NASA Y2K problem: Addressing the urgent need for fighting fraud, forgery and plagiarism in science world-wide, the very first World Conference on Research […]


It’s been awhile since I have shown new USHCN stations, and its not for lack of material. But I got busy with the UCAR conference, publishing a slide show, and other things. But this morning, über volunteer Don Kostuch sent me a note on his latest survey in Titusville, FL near Cape Canaveral and KSC. […]

"Miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis"

Dr. Ioannidis, an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass, has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye. He writes in the WSJ as follows: Most Science […]

Hansen Step 1

Hansen “Step 1” which was the source of the August crossword puzzles does not occur in a crossword puzzle form in the USHCN stations that we’ve been discussing this week. The “Hansen bias” in combining scribal versions, noticed by John Goetz, does not occur in USHCN stations for two separate reasons: (1) in the USHCN […]

Should NASA climate accountants adhere to GAAP?

Shortly after, NASA published their source code on Sept 7, we started noticing puzzling discrepancies in the new data set. On Sep 12, 2007, I inquired about the changes to Hansen and Ruedy, observing that there was no notice of the apparent changes at their website: Dear Sirs, I notice that you’ve changed the historical […]

A Second Look at USHCN Classification

Yesterday, I posted up a first look at differences between station histories classified as CRN=1 (good) versus CRN=5 (bad) – a simple comparison of averages, noting that other factors may well enter into the comparison. A couple of other points that I’ve made consistently as we look at these results which I’d like people to […]

Is Juckes et al 2006 Peer Reviewed?

As readers of this blog know, Juckes et al submitted a paper for online review at Climate of the Past Discussions. See here for discussion. There were many unsatisfactory and even distasteful aspects to this paper. I submitted a detailed online review, as did Willis Eschenbach and another CA reader. I spent time rebutting a […]

First Look at the USHCN Quality Classification

Anthony Watts has posted up a quality assessment of the USHCN stations here. John V presented some graphics in the comments thread here and below is my first pass – this comment is not intended to exhaust all possible cross-cuts of the data is merely the first thing that I looked at. I compared the […]

The September 2007 Bear Market in NASA Temperature "Pasts"

Since August 1, 2007, NASA has had 3 substantially different online versions of their 1221 USHCN stations (1221 in total.) The third and most recent version was slipped in without any announcement or notice in the last few days – subsequent to their code being placed online on Sept 7, 2007. (I can vouch for […]