the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Raven’s Reasoning

Posted by Jeff Id on March 28, 2009

I made another mistake again today. It’s really not my day, the Red Wings lost too. I went over to Tamino’s closed mind blog where his mindless followers swarm any dissent. Yeah, I know I never learn. Tammie simply amputates any views his angry mind can’t handle. He really is an unusually angry person. I’ve tried to discuss things with Tamino and his followers simply pile on, insult and have no idea you’re not allowed to respond.

Today my eyes caught a discussion between Ravin and Tammie …… After reading, I realized that I actually have a blog and an audience as well. So instead of getting my comments clipped, I’ll just post it here and let anyone who feels the need, make comments.

Raven // January 31, 2008 at 6:03 am

Interesting.

It has been my position that the temps in 2015 would have to be at least 0.2 degC higher in 2015 to validate the AGW position. This was a crude calculation based on the CO2 sensitivity ranges presented in the IPCC report.

Your graphs come up with that same spread for different reasons.

That said, I don’t trust the GISS and HadCRUT datasets for the same reason I would not trust the unaudited financial statements produced by the Enron. I realize the satellite measurements have their own issues but there are two competing groups using the same dataset which helps ensure that self-serving data manipulation is kept to a minimum.

Would you take the bet on the average of UAH and RSS or is it limited to the GISS/HadCRUT?

Instead of betting money would you be willing to publicly acknowledge that AGW alarmists got the science wrong if you lost? Would you be willing to publicly apologize to skeptics who you have denigrated?

If not what would it take for you to do that?

The way I see it bets for money are a red herring since most people are prudent and would never bet more than they could afford to lose even if they were 95% sure about the outcome. Instead of fooling around with bets for money you should state what it will take to change your mind.

[Response: Your implication that GISS or HadCRU is guilty of "self-serving data manipulation" is mean-spirited, offensive, and unsupported by any evidence. Unless you can offer EVIDENCE with documentation to back it up, don't repeat it here.

Your questions make me wonder whether you actually read the post. What part of "I’ll also emphasize that I’m not interested in betting money on it" is unclear? What part of "If, however many years from now, the no-more-warming side wins the bet, and no unequivocal caveats are identified, then I’ll admit that our understanding of global climate is insufficient and that we can’t rely on the prognostications of the climate science community" is unclear?

Shame on you.]

Raven // January 31, 2008 at 7:04 am

Yes I did misread your post about not wanting to make bets for money. I apologize for that. I had mixed you up with James Annan who has frequently talked about betting money.

For my I part I would also concede that the AGW point view is most likely correct if the warming trend continued into the ranges you identify. I feel your targets are a fair representation of the two possibilities.

My suspicions of the GISS and HadCRUT datasets comes from a general suspicion of any situation where there is a conflict on interest. One could argue that most executives would not deliberately manipulate their books even if they did not get audited. However, I would never invest money in company that did not allow its books to be audited by third parties.

A lot of money is riding on the temperature data so feel there is no excuse for allowing the ‘perception of possible bias’ to go on. The fact that many resist acknowledging the potential for bias simply re-enforces my view that the data should not be trusted unless it is audited by third parties.

[Response: All the data used by GISS can be downloaded from the web; the procedures they use are documented in the peer-reviewd literature; even the code for their computer programs is freely available. Their books are "open" and have been subjected to intense scrutiny.]

Raven // January 31, 2008 at 7:28 am

US taxpayers a fair amount of money for the GISS data to be produced. Expecting volunteers to replicate this work for free is not enough. Also volunteers have attempted to use the computer programs that were made available but were forced to give up because of poor documentation and OS/compiler problems.

You cannot say it has been audited unless proper funding has been provided to people who sole objective is to identify problems and ensure they get corrected.

More importantly, there have been a number of people producing analyses that suggest that the data is quite biased yet these criticisms are ignored (Anthony Watts, Ross McKitrick, Roger Peike Sr). You cannot claim that the GISS data has been subject to intense scrutiny if legitimate criticisms are regularly dismissed by the gatekeepers.

[Response: What a load of crap. Watts, McKitrick, and Pielke have generated ZERO real evidence -- just as you have zero evidence of any misconduct -- but they've slung a lot of unfounded insults -- just like you have.

It seems you're one of those who, no matter how closely the data and results are examined, will just invent yet another reason to claim it's not enough. Keep moving the goalposts.]

Raven // January 31, 2008 at 7:52 am

It does not make a difference if you think they have zero evidence. What matters is whether their criticisms have been dealt with reasonably. Your response is typical and demonstrates that they are not being dealt with reasonably.

Right now the keepers of the data are free to arbitrarily dismiss any criticism. This state of affairs is unacceptable. Governments should take control of the data aways from the agencies developing the models. The conflict of interest is huge and would not be tolerated in any other field.

[Response: It doesn't matter that they have zero evidence of any wrongdoing or mistake? It doesn't matter that after years of trying to discredit the surface record, they've managed zip? What dream-world do you inhabit?

It would appear that from your point of view, it's the *truth* that doesn't matter.]

Raven // January 31, 2008 at 4:09 pm

If the GISS has been fixed the Micheals and McKitrick would not have been able to find correlations between temps and social economic data. Nor would Peike be able to demonstrate biases in the measurement techniques. BTW – IPCC IR4 acknowledges the correlations found by McKitrick but dismisses them as mere “coincidence”.

Auditing is not perfect but it is a lot better than doing nothing and expecting to people to blindly trust the data. Especially when the gatekeepers like Hansen have long since dispensed with any notion of scientific objectivity and become political activists.

The limited disclosure of GISS methods was only done after the government forced NASA to do so. More critically: the information that was disclosed did not allow others to replicate the work which means the disclosure was meaningless.

I consider the fact that it was necessary to fight to get any disclosure from NASA is more evidence of bad faith on the part of the gatekeepers and yet one more reason why the data should be treated as suspect until proven otherwise.

The idea that the fossil fuel industry should finance the effort is absurd – you know damn well that you would reject any work funded in that manner. The money should come the governments that fund the people making the alarmist claims.

[Response: You're entitled to your own opinion. But you're not entitled to your own facts.

GISS procedures have been part of the peer-reviewed literature for nearly a decade, and have always been an open book.

As for correlations between temps and social economic data, quite a bit of fudging and cherry-picking was included to make the correlations appear stronger than they really are; essentially, they simply removed the data they didn't like. And if you don't believe in the existence of coincidence, you don't know much about statistics.

Your statement that "gatekeepers like Hansen have long since dispensed with any notion of scientific objectivity" is nothing short of libelous. It's the last time you'll make such a statement here; reiterations will go straight to the trashcan.]


41 Responses to “Raven’s Reasoning”

  1. Jeff Id said

    Tamino,

    Raven’s views expressed here are easily accepted by anyone reasonable. Hansen is no scientist and favors politics over reason. Unfortunately people like you who believe in censorship to support government control haven’t the power to stop blogs yet and BTW there is no libel for truth.

    Raven,

    Nice job braving the bad weather.

  2. TCO said

    This is penny ante blog crap. Can’t you get amped up about something that means more?

  3. Mike Davis said

    I will agree with JeffID regarding what Raven brought up. I wold like to add to Tamino: Please keep up the good work provideing evidence of bias in the current research. You are doing a good job of supporting the no AGW crowd!

  4. Jeff Id said

    #2 Tamino is considered an authority on global warming by his minions. Enough so that people ask questions hoping for answers. I’ve been around long enough to read Raven’s views and would say they are open minded. Tammie is on the team, as it were although I think he drives the Zamboni.

    I promise to continue pointing out that the two main AGW blogs censor reason and like extremists replace it with dogma. Only reality here TCO.

  5. soil said

    Quite interesting. First time I see warmers admitting any sort of quality control on their models. However, there is a third possibility, which nor Raven nor Tamino see. What if Akasofu is right? What if there is a natural “out of LIA” trend, since 1800, of about 0.5ºC?

    The question is not global warming. The question is anthropogenic global warming. With this in mind, this sort of “bet” is what any reasonable person should be asking for. Me thinks.

  6. TCO said

    dude, I know they do. I much prefer to be on a site that at a minimum allows posts to go up withouth pre moderation. At least you can get seen for a while. But I know that. And Raven is penny ante hoi polloi type. A pompous dunderhead. We skeptics need to do better…

  7. TinyCO2 said

    If catastrophic AGW ever comes to pass (and like you guys, I doubt it) there will have to be inquiries as to why the very important awareness issue was left with such… gits. Why are all major supporters of AGW so revolting?

    Now I’m a person who really, really, really hates conspiracy theories but I was attracted to the debate about AGW by the pronouncements ‘the debate is over’ and ‘the science is settled’. It immediately raised red flags because they were such ridiculous statements. There was no way that mankind had a good grasp on the complexities of the climate and anyone stating otherwise was either lying or bonkers.

    The figures and organisations that are at the heart of AGW promotion are exactly the types of people I would find hard to trust – politicians, reporters, Hollywood stars, Green Peace, mad scientists, Prince Charles, the UN… Even judging by their actions and not their words, THEY don’t care about AGW, why then should I suddenly accept what they say on climate change?

    The more I read about AGW theory, the more I become convinced that it is vitally important to keep questioning the dogma. You guys do a fantastic job and even if it turns out that you’re wrong, you’ll have been right to try and shake the CO2 edifice.

  8. spangled drongo said

    TCO,
    Let’s face it, we’re all “pompous dunderheads” to varying degrees
    when it comes to climate science and none more so than the pro AGW bloggers.
    At least by being sceptical we are not so far up ourselves.

  9. papertiger said

    Who is this joker anyhow?

    Lubos gives us a few clues. If the Professor is right, Tamino is a freelance writer of tracking cookies for overtone inc. [formerly Island Data Corp.], who in his spare time strums a guitar at renaissance faires, and managed to work hand in hand with James Annan, Gavin Schmidt, and Michael Mann, [pdf alert] on at least one documented occasion.
    In other words, a completely amoral self serving scumbag who pines for a return to “ye goode ole medieval days”, who probably has armed the other warming cretins with comment tracking cookies, so that they can deflect baffle and defend against posts like mine in “real time”.

    Tamino is the type of character that makes a person proud to in opposition.

  10. papertiger said

    How did I do TCO? Too pompous? (I really don’t think Tammy walks the halls in a sweat over my posts ;)
    But he has banned me from commenting at open (?) mind.

  11. TCO said

    You have a little more juice to you.

    That said, I don’t agree with going after Tammy’s rl id if he chooses not to share it.

    I wouldn’t get amped up about not being allowed to comment (or being heavily moderated at RC and OM). I agree that it happens.

    Instead, you all ought to concentrate on upping your own game. Of being a true skeptic. I thought SM was cool for a month or so, as I read his site. As I found him avoiding questions and playing cherrypick games, I realized he is an internet crank. Not as cool as he would be if all his doodling was actually meaningful. Now, watching the 4 year tease…I can tell you…the guy is another retiree, Heartland attender. Not much to offer. Every now and then he comes up with something slightly decent (like Y2K). But he definitely doesn’t play fair (doesn’t even pin down his own crits). And he has a brittle sense of hurt for any slights by the team…while having all kinds of fraud allegations and cartoon pictures and the like against them.

    Be real skeptics, people.

  12. TCO said

    I loved it when JohnV cut the Gordian knot on the Watts surface stations work. And it was obvious that Steve did not like penetrating analyses that go the warmer way…but does like the reverse. That he cherry picks. And that he tolerates and fails to call out idiocy from his Douglass, Loehle, Watts buddies all over the place.

    The whole thing is a social phenom…people. That’s why people on CA shreik like ox-gored peasants when someone goes against their view. Why the run to the border of their forest territory like a chimp tribe to throw feces against the enemy. Well eff them. I’ll napalm their babies. I want real tests, real knowledge. Want it shown whichever way it cuts. Not surfaced selectively like a shell company stock promoter.

  13. TCO said

    Why you have bender or like types, run to snoop and question motives, when someone comes in with a strong counter argument. Why he redirects and asks them to defend all AGW or the like. Well eff him. I’ve gone up against him and beaten his head in (figuratively). He’s a little academicer. Civilian maggot.

  14. TCO said

    Oh…and before you dismiss me as a weird gin fueled crazy, realize guys like Zorita and Burger have had the same experience of McI. SM does not want to clarify things and prove them one way or another. He wants to play games and talk about apples and cherries instead.

  15. Richard M said

    From everything I’ve read about Tamino (only went to the site once) he is a typical narcissist. These folks are attention seekers and what better way to get attention than to feed the AGW crowd. Of course, NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) sufferers really fear being shown they are wrong. That is why he censors so much.

    It is also very likely he “projects” his own self doubts and fears. Comments like “shame on you” are very telling. He is really telling everyone he is ashamed of himself and his need to censor opposing views.

  16. TCO said

    Oh stop with the sikoanalyzing. Did you learn that from Donahue or Oprah. Man up, thug up.

  17. Jeff Id said

    #16, Richard might be on to something. Tammie reminds me of the peace and love hippies which snap and blow up police stations. He’s wound way too tight.

  18. Jeff Id said

    I actually agree with much of Raven’s argument. It’s disingenuous to consider Exxon money differently from government money, they both look the same and spend the same way. All will agree the politicians allocating the money have goals and their job description requires that the money be spent in a manner to help achieve those goals.

    In my opinion it’s simply dishonest (or perhaps a mental disorder) for an intelligent person to claim that government funded science has no bias. I don’t see how a person could trick themselves into believing otherwise.

    Someone pointed out to me once that on completion of a government project the money stops so the successful government researcher never reaches a conclusion. Success in government science does little to guarantee future money unless the politicians recognize some benefit toward their own goals. Therefore the entire direction of the IPCC is to make sure that climate change is real, the results are severe and most importantly the solution is EXPENSIVE!

  19. Richard M said

    TCO, did I get a little too close for comfort?

    Your own posts show narcissistic tendencies as well. Your attacks on SteveM demonstrate he did not show YOU enough attention and you resent him for it. Your continual posts here (and language) also demonstrate a desire for attention. I can see why you would object to any analysis that hits close to home. Statistics show about 1 in 20 have narcissistic tendencies. Maybe you should take a serious look in the mirror.

    PS. Be careful what you project … ;-)

    As for Tammie … his defense of Hansen and claims that he is “open” is also a projection. He clearly understands (at some level) that is a lie and it reflects poorly on anyone who defends Hansen (which he does). Therefore, his use of the word “open” in this situation gives away his own fears. It would be easy to tear Tammie apart in any truly open forum since he projects everything about his own self-doubts.

  20. TCO said

    Richard….bwahaha. No you didn’t get too close too comfort. I can disaggregate. [snip]
    P.s. I agree that my posts are extremely narcisistic.

    p.s.s. DISAGGREGATE, ya [snip -- stop name calling, it doesn't help anyone.]

    I can’t believe I’m going to have to waste my time and actually develop some kind of policy like I’m dealing with children. This is supposed to be an open forum for discussion not for cussing, name calling or the like.

  21. TCO said

    I’m working on the cussing. Please let me still name call. That’s what they internet is for.

  22. TCO said

    Dude…I feel bad now that you are going to have a policy. I think I can just stop posting here instead. I never really have any real content anyhow. (I’ve heard most of the debates a million times and at this point just have a perspective on the actors and the situation.) Anyhow, please carry on with your data crunching and intermittent tribal political stuff. It’s cool. I won’t mess with it.

  23. Jeff Id said

    22, Like everyone else you’re welcome to post, the name calling is tiresome.

  24. TAG said

    Tamino commented:

    All the data used by GISS can be downloaded from the web; the procedures they use are documented in the peer-reviewd literature; even the code for their computer programs is freely available. Their books are “open” and have been subjected to intense scrutiny.]

    GISS published incorrect temperature data for seven (7) years after the year 2000. No one at GISS, NASA or the broader climate science community noticed

    Their books are “open” and have been subjected to intense scrutiny.]

    GISS’s output is subject to “intense scrutiny”. — OK

  25. Jeff Id said

    #24 It’s nuts to assume that Giss has suitably documented the data. The corrections are arbitrary and in most cases idiotic. It will be nice when surfacestations completes the US version of the data. I guarantee China is even worse with their data.

    Putting messed up data into a number masher can’t fix it but it can trick you into thinking it’s fixed.

  26. Jeff Id said

    I’ve thought about TCO a bit. You know a minor comment here and there doesn’t register. I’ve been called just about every kind of stupid in the book and it doesn’t mean anything. It’s simply that every other comment is a SteveM bash or someone else. I’ll make a post about antarctic correlation and end up reading about monkey feces. Something I have never encountered in the real world. I see blogs which require pre-moderation just to post and I don’t like them because you can’t have a discussion.

    Anyway it’s long winded but here’s my thought. Occasional shots are fine, occasional cursing is fine as long as they don’t take over threads. I don’t want to stop anyone from expressing their views as many of you are smarter and more knowledgeable than myself.

  27. Kenneth Fritsch said

    When TCO says in Post #12

    “I loved it when JohnV cut the Gordian knot on the Watts surface stations work. And it was obvious that Steve did not like penetrating analyses that go the warmer way…but does like the reverse. That he cherry picks. And that he tolerates and fails to call out idiocy from his Douglass, Loehle, Watts buddies all over the place.”

    I would have to respectfully disagree that John V’s analysis statistically proved anything. He used 13 CRN 1 and 2 rural stations (12 CRN2 and 1 CRN2 as I recall) to compare to GISS data and found no difference in temperature trends. The data are very noisy (trend-wise) within a CRN rating and making a reasonable statistical comparison requires more stations. When I compared CRN123 versus CRN45 stations I found significant differences over time periods where a reasonable amount of complete data were available and lattitude,longitude and altitude were taken into account. RomanM did a more sophisticated analysis, using my data, that showed significant differences between CRN levels. I used USHCN data, and since there are differences between the USHCN and GISS data sets for urban adjustments and I should go back and repeat my comparisons with GISS data.

    But regardless of my results, John V’s analysis, that I described above, was without statistical merit or basis for making any conclusions.

    I see that TCO has indicated that he is quitting posting here, but nevertheless I think it is important that generalizations not be left without at least an effort to add in some details. I have encouraged the Watts team to do further statistical analyses when their evalutions are complete or as complete as they can be. I also encouraged John V to do a more comprehensive analysis, but have not seen any results at this point.

  28. Kenneth Fritsch said

    That should be 12 CRN2 and 1 CRN1 stations in my comment above.

  29. Matt Y. said

    To me, the great thing about sites like this one (and CA for that matter), is that it is not just Jeff Id preaching to the masses from upon high. It is an open and collaborative effort. To get anywhere, you’re gonna need to draw on the knowledge and experience of the entire community. The surest sign you are dealing with an idiot is when they tell you they know it all.

  30. TCO said

    Ken,

    1. I agree that JohnV was not definitive. I welcome more and better. I do think it was close to the best analysis possible with the data gathered to date…and far superior to SM’s approach of not gridcelling. Also that Watts wanted to rush to press with iosolated snippets that went his way…liked leading a whole movement based on it..but HATED it when JohnV showed the “sum to date”. And since JohnV did, Watts has put the whole thing on back burner. In addition, I totally noticed how all of SM’s scruitiny went to trying to find faults with JohnV’s work to try to resurect a pro skeptic position. but V’s stuff held up and was a better approach than Steve’s.

  31. TCO said

    You can have the last word Ken.

  32. Raven said

    Hi Jeff,

    Thanks for the positive feedback. I had forgotten about that exchange. I have given up on Tamino a long time ago.

    Watt’s work is essential for highlighting the problem with siting, however, I do not expect the trends in the continental US to be that biased based on the analyses of the algorithm done by SteveM. M&Ms paper on contamination of the surface record also suggests the US record is probably minimal but not non-existent.

    However, the records from the rest of the world are a mess and we are seeing some progress where Phil Jones admitted the Chinese surface record is junk but that it does not affect the over all trend. Unfortunately, I suspect we will never get those “adjustments” that take into account the cooling bias in 60-70s for the USSR stations (I have heard people say funding for remote townships was linked to how cold the winters were which gives an incentive to report cooler temperatures).

    That said, I am a lot more cynical now. With Obama in charge the alarmists feel they have won and it does not make a difference what the self-appointed auditors or the temperature records say because no one will listen.

    Obama just announced a climate summit in April where you can fully expect him to spend even more US taxpayer dollars to bribe China and India into pretending to accept hard targets.

    One devil which I fully expect to be in the detail of these agreements will be a provision that forces western corporations who hold patents or other IP on “green” technology to hand this technology over to the Chinese/Indians for little or no compensation. The Chinese/Indians companies will then sell this technology back to other western companies and undercut the owners. This provision will likely be broad enough to include technology that is only peripherally associated with reducing CO2 and will further undermine the competitiveness of western based companies.

    I suspect the above because “technology transfer” is a key point in the negotiations and its core “technology transfer” means giving away intellectual property. Obama will give in because he is desperate for a deal and he probably thinks that giving other people’s IP away “costs nothing”.

  33. Jeff Id said

    #32 Glad you stopped by.

    I hope you’re wrong about the IP. One of the dirty little secrets of the Air Vent is that I own a bunch of Green IP. It feeds my family.

  34. Raven said

    Jeff,

    I did not know that it affected you that personally. I suggest you look carefully at the agreements as they are announced and be prepared to contact your favorite senator. If the activists had their way the patents on AIDS drugs would have been simply ignored. It took serious backbone on the part of US officials to ensure that their rights were even partially protected. I doubt the backbone exists in the Obama administration.

  35. Raven said

    Jeff,

    On second thought I am probably being too pessimistic. I am pretty sure that Al Gore has tonnes of green IP via his investment funds that he will want to protect. So he will probably ensure that these IP interests are protected.

  36. Jeff Id said

    Raven,

    I try not to worry and hope I can sell enough product so in the end it doesn’t matter.

  37. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Jeff, Raven,
    This is getting biblical in regards to the Chinese.

    Anyone who can see lies for what they are, see the need for audits.
    And we see errors all the time. but not hanson/nasa?
    did we not loose two shuttles ?
    Gavin is clearly loosing the discussion so he warns of tossing you into the trash can!
    How classic this is!
    Control that is all this is…. control folks that is it……

    Jeff I hope we get the serface station data worked out, and I hope you will “peer” review it.

    And thanks for bringing it (Raven // January 31, 2008 ) post here to read!

  38. rephelan said

    Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said
    March 29, 2009 at 5:23 am
    “This is getting biblical in regards to the Chinese.”

    Tim, the Chinese are NOT our friends. Over the last half century, the United States has been able to impose its values on the world: toleration, human rights, free trade, democracy…. really bad things, right? We paid in blood in Lebanon, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan for those values. We were able to do this because we produced 60% of every thing that was made in the world. Today we produce 20%. The Chinese produce 20%. Most of our people are engaged in service work… we produce computer programs and pharmaceuticals and processes…. essentially intellectual products that can be produced elsewhere. Like China.

    In China, almost 40% of the population is engaged in Agricultural production, compared to .5% in the US and about 1.5% for Europe. When the Chinese mechanize their agriculture more people will be released for industrial production than live in the entire US or Europe. The Chinese do NOT admire freedom, individual rights, individualism or freedom of conscience. They will be in a position to dictate their values and priorities to us. Doubt it? Take a look at the Baseball stadiums with billboards in Chinese and Japanese, or the number of buses on I-95 running up to the Foxwoods from NYC with Chinese characters (for those of you in Connecticut, “Feng Hwa” means “Glorious Wind”). American Internet companies are already blocking sites the Chines find offensive.. possibly even the Airvent.

    Both China and the U.N. have suggested that the US dollar should no longer be the “reserve currency” for the World…… my guess, the replacement would be something tied to the Yuan…

  39. fred said

    You are spot on with the remark that tamino is a very angry man. There are unfortunately many AGW bloggers whose main motivation appears to be that the subject gives them license for the unrestrained expression of self righteous spleen. He is one.

    If you are engaged in saving the planet, indignation at your opponents is very justifiable after all. All opposition is seen as being insincere, venal, stupid or whatever.

    The acid test of Tamino was his discussion of the Hockey Stick and PCA. He walked up to the edge of MBH, peered over, and was unable to bring himself to report what he saw. Instead in the last item in his series on PCA he obfuscated and raged at everyone who pointed out he’d done so. But you see, it was fine, because the future of the planet was at stake.

    All this will end in a few years when warming fails to resume. You and McIntyre and Lucia are doing excellent work and you will have your honorable places in the intellectual history of this mania. Your candor about recent errors has been noted and appreciated by those who care.

  40. Kenneth Fritsch said

    TCO at Post#31 said:

    “You can have the last word Ken.”

    I’ll take you up on that, TCO. Below is a MS Word document of a copy of a post that I made at CA. I could not easily recall or find the post.

    Please note the link to the post that Romanm made in summarizing a proper analysis of the data that I provided to him. This was my first major contact with Roman and I learned a lot from him in the process and have since then also.

    Not sure how to put things in quotes here but I attempted to do so below>

    I think it is an appropriate time for me to reference an analysis of covariance that RomanM did as statistician on some data CRN rating, population, altitude, longitude and latitude that I provided him and also give some history on what motivated this analysis.

    A poster at CA, known as John V, did some good work with the GISS code, as I recall, and was able to provide some station data for comparison with the Watts’ team CRN ratings very early in the process of the Watts’ team evaluations. He then proceeded to make some comparisons of the GISS temperature trends with the available rural CRN1 and CRN2 stations. As it turns out the variability in temperature trends from station to station regardless of CRN rating can be quite high and John V was using something like 16 CRN2 and 1 CRN1 rural stations in his comparison. It was obvious to me that larger numbers were required to make these comparisons given the size of station variability.

    I attempted to do a layperson’s statistical analysis and found from the advice of RomanM that some of my assumptions were incorrect. RomanM did a rather comprehensive analysis that was posted in the link below. He also included an analysis with the Watts’ ratings broken down into the two groups of CRN123 and CRN45. This breakdown provides larger samples because the CRN12 group is rather small and the CRN3 is considerably larger.

    Re: RomanM (#130),

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169

    My motivation in all these exercises has been to encourage a proper statistical analysis of the Watts’ team evaluations. I used CRN comparisons with USHCN station adjusted data (the Urban series) and would like to see that comparison expanded to the USHCN Version 2 series and the homogeneity adjusted GISS series.

    I have noticed that the latest Watts’ team CRN ratings are not readily available for viewing and that might be motivated by an attempt to prevent impatient people like me from making premature conclusions based on incomplete data. That would make sense to me, but I would also hope that someone will eventually do the proper statistical analyses and to publish them – or least to post them.

  41. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Kenneth Fritsch said
    March 29, 2009 at 5:29 pm

    Yes I am sure that the WUWT “team” are being
    held back so as not to give the other side ammo
    and disregard to QC work. let us not jump the gun!
    looks like J&J can back up A.W.’s work.
    go boy’s go!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: