• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Error Festival that is HadCRUT4

Mithrae said:
Behind the completed 'audit' then.
Click to expand...
They do not present a magic wand with the sheepskin.
A person has the same level of technical capability before and after the award ceremony.
 
longview said:
They do not present a magic wand with the sheepskin.
A person has the same level of technical capability before and after the award ceremony.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems that this so-called audit was potentially timed to coincide with and pre-emptively undermine the real scientists' work in the IPCC report. I've already shown in my initial post the obvious lack of capability (or at least honesty) in the material that's been presented but this timing thing, if true, is just another nail in the coffin.
 
Mithrae said:
I'm not sure what you mean. It seems that this so-called audit was potentially timed to coincide with and pre-emptively undermine the real scientists' work in the IPCC report. I've already shown in my initial post the obvious lack of capability (or at least honesty) in the material that's been presented but this timing thing, if true, is just another nail in the coffin.
Click to expand...
Ph.D. was awarded in 2017.
Click to expand...
Behind the completed 'audit' then.
Click to expand...
It seemed your were implying that the award of the Phd was the qualification to perform the audit.
 
"So much for that facade. How can people who care about the climate be so sloppy and amateur with the data?"

That's an easy one to answer. The climate sciences have been more about the message than the data since at least 1988. The climate science only spots errors in the data when it diverges from message...
 
Since GISTEMP has been managed by extremely partisan anti-industrial activists since it's inception, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that its data set is equally full of abysmal methodology, sloth and lack of discipline.

GISTEMP and HADCRUT are like two kids who didn't study for an exam who are cheating off each others answers.
 
Joe Schmoe on the interwebz says them sciencey folks got it wrong again! Say it ain't so, ma!
 
Deuce said:
Albert Einstein made spelling errors therefore relativity is wrong
Click to expand...

The spelling errors show carelessness, the numerical errors would be akin to Einstein using the wrong value for the speed of light, or changing the value to meet his theory.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Joe Schmoe on the interwebz says them sciencey folks got it wrong again! Say it ain't so, ma!
Click to expand...

So the author, John McLean, who received his doctorate auditing global climate data, is "Joe Schmoe on the interwebz"? :roll:

Now that you have the appeal to authority fallacy in the books I expect an agumentum ad populum is being feverishly typed up.
 
Last edited:
Mithrae said:
Behind the completed 'audit' then.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "behind." The audit was completed in 2017 at the latest, and therefore could not have been politically motivated by release of the Special Report in 2018.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not sure what you mean by "behind." The audit was completed in 2017 at the latest, and therefore could not have been politically motivated by release of the Special Report in 2018.
Click to expand...

...okay then...

Jack Hays said:
HadCRUT-audit-220x126.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Mithrae said:
...okay then...
Click to expand...

Yes? So what? The thesis was completed no later than 2017, so its motivation could not have been the release of the Special Report in 2018. The decision to publish the thesis is another matter, but that has no bearing on the research completed at least a year earlier.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Met Office responds to HadCRUT global temperature audit by McLean[/h][FONT=&quot]WUWT readers surely recall this story: BOMBSHELL: audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors While not issuing a press release, the scientists have responded to press inquiries. Britain’s Met Office welcomes audit by Australian researcher about HadCRUT errors Graham Lloyd, The Australian Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean…
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]#DataGate: Hadley reply to first audit with foggy excuses about problems 2,000 staff didn’t find[/h]
Last week we exposed absurd errors, brutal adjustments and an almost complete lack of quality control (was there any at all?) in the key HadCRUT4 data. The IPCC’s favorite set is maintained (I’m feeling generous) by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Uni of East Anglia’s CRU in the UK.
Finally the Hadley Met Centre team have replied to Graham Lloyd regarding John McLean’s audit. They don’t confirm or discount any of his new claims specifically. But they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “any errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not.
They don’t mention the killer issue of the adjustments for site-moves at all — that’s the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.
Otherwise this is the usual PR fog — a few outliers don’t change the trend, the world is warming, and other datasets show “similar trends“. The elephant in the kitchen is the site move adjustments which do change the trend which they didn’t mention.
And while the absurd outliers may not change the trend (we don’t know yet) the message from frozen tropical islands is terrible. These bizarre mistakes are like glowing hazard signs that the dataset is neglected, decaying, essentially junk. What else might be wrong? How do we reconcile the experts urgent insistence that climate change is the greatest threat to life on Earth but it’s not important enough to bother checking the data? We must pay trillions, turn vegetarian, and live in cold rooms, but the actual historic measurements are irrelevant. Were some numbers left in Fahrenheit for 40 years? Nevermind.
They claim that automated quality control checks are done, as are manual checks, but we are still wondering what that means when they haven’t even done a spelling check and nor bothered to filter out the freak outliers which are hotter than the hottest day on Earth. These kinds of checks are something that a 12 year old geek could write the code for.
The Met Office protests that the database includes “7 million points”, but then, they do have a supercomputer that can do 16,000 trillion calculations every second. The ten-nanosecond-test for the new World Record Temperature would have fished out the silliest mistakes, some of which have been there for decades.
They claim they are backed up by other datasets. but all the worlds temperature sets are juggling the same pool of measurements. If the shonky site-move adjustments start with national met bureaus, then get sent out around the world, all the global datasets combine the same mistakes and make similar overestimations.

[h=1]Britain’s Met Office welcomes audit by Australian researcher about HadCRUT errors[/h]Graham Lloyd, The Australian
Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean that claims to have identified serious errors in its HadCRUT global temperature record.
“Any actual errors identified will be dealt with in the next major update.’’
The Met Office said automated quality checks were performed on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data were subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.
“The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,” the Met Office spokesman said.
“We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files.
“We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said.




 
[h=2]Hadley excuse implies their quality control might filter out the freak outliers? Not so.[/h]
The Met Office, Hadley Centre response to #DataGate implied they do quality control and that leaves the impression that they might filter out the frozen tropical islands and other freak data:
We perform automated quality checks on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data are subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.
I asked John to expand on what Hadley means. He replies that the quality control they do is very minimal, obviously inadequate, and these errors definitely survive the process and get into the HadCRUT4 dataset. Bear in mind a lot of the problems begin with the national meteorological services which supply the shoddy data, but then Hadley seems pretty happy to accept these mistakes. (Hey, it’s not like Life on Earth depends on us understanding our climate. :- ) )
As far as long term trends go, the site-move-adjustments are the real problem and create an artificial warming trend. On the other hand, the frozen tropical islands tells us how competent the “Experts” really are (not a lot) and how much they care about understanding what our climate really was (not at all). That said, we don’t know what effect the freak outliers have on the big trends, but then, neither do the experts.
Below, John drills into those details which show just how pathetically neglected the dataset is. For data-heads — the freak outliers affect the standard deviation and calculation of the normal range. This is a pretty technical issue here “for the record” and to advance the discussion of what Hadley neglected data means. For what it’s worth, McLean can manually copy the process that is documented as the right way to create the HadCRUT4 set, and he can produce the same figures they get. That suggests he knows what he’s doing. — Jo
__________________________________________
[h=4]Leaving outliers in the key years means that Hadley won’t filter out real outliers in other years.http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/ha...ter-out-the-freak-outliers-not-so/#more-61183Keep reading →
[/h]



 
HADCRUT4
How Bad is HadCRUT4 Data?

Guest Essay by Renee Hannon Introduction This post is a coarse screening assessment of HadCRUT4 global temperature anomalies to determine the impact, if any, of data quality and data coverage. There has been much discussion on WUWT about the quality of the Hadley temperature anomaly dataset since McLean’s Audit of the HadCRUT4 Global Temperature publication…

[FONT=&quot]". . . Warm and cold spike maximums do not demonstrate any obvious increasing or decreasing trends from 1880 to present day, except for 1878. The recent 1998 and 2016 warm spikes are within one standard deviation of past warm spikes.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The HadCRUT4 global data pre-1950 may contain useful information but should be used with caution with an understanding that increases in noise due to poor data sampling may create false or enhanced temperature anomalies. . . . "[/FONT]

 
Jack Hays said:
[FONT=&]HADCRUT4[/FONT]
How Bad is HadCRUT4 Data?

[FONT=&]Guest Essay by Renee Hannon Introduction This post is a coarse screening assessment of HadCRUT4 global temperature anomalies to determine the impact, if any, of data quality and data coverage. There has been much discussion on WUWT about the quality of the Hadley temperature anomaly dataset since McLean’s Audit of the HadCRUT4 Global Temperature publication…

[/FONT][FONT="][FONT=Garamond]". . . Warm and cold spike maximums do not demonstrate any obvious increasing or decreasing trends from 1880 to present day, except for 1878. The recent 1998 and 2016 warm spikes are within one standard deviation of past warm spikes.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]The HadCRUT4 global data pre-1950 may contain useful information but should be used with caution with an understanding that increases in noise due to poor data sampling may create false or enhanced temperature anomalies. . . . "[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

From reading the links, it appears that data being used is not being double-checked, and basic errors in accuracy are not being caught, yet the IPCC treats data used in their reports as correct. Using one example, temperatures at a city in Columbia were listed for 70 years as 80 degrees C, which meant it was 176 degrees Fahrenheit, and No One Noticed! The highest temperature ever recorded in the Sahara Desert in the daytime was 136 degrees, so 176 degrees is probably not possible for human survival. If the IPCC intends to continue with the climate change "97% scientific agreement" mantra, they should also expect that accuracy of information submitted to them will be understood as being absolutely necessary!
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

From reading the links, it appears that data being used is not being double-checked, and basic errors in accuracy are not being caught, yet the IPCC treats data used in their reports as correct. Using one example, temperatures at a city in Columbia were listed for 70 years as 80 degrees C, which meant it was 176 degrees Fahrenheit, and No One Noticed! The highest temperature ever recorded in the Sahara Desert in the daytime was 136 degrees, so 176 degrees is probably not possible for human survival. If the IPCC intends to continue with the climate change "97% scientific agreement" mantra, they should also expect that accuracy of information submitted to them will be understood as being absolutely necessary!
Click to expand...

Greeting, Polgara.:2wave:

I have a feeling this story will go on for a while.:cool:
 
Jack Hays said:
Greeting, Polgara.:2wave:

I have a feeling this story will go on for a while.:cool:
Click to expand...

:agree: If I understand correctly, the "wealthier" countries on this planet will be expected to pay a tax to help the poorer countries handle problems such as famine, drought, lack of safe drinking water, etc. The last I read was that the US "invoice" from the UN will be $1 billion dollars per year. :wow: There goes any plans for replacing our crumbling 100-year-old underground water pipe infrastructure which is already causing problems in many parts of our country, and that's only one problem we face. We have millions of people in this country that rely on our government for food and housing to survive - where is all the money going to come from to pay for everything? Our debt already exceeds $21 trillion dollars and climbing, but I haven't heard any suggestions on what to do when the interest alone on that debt takes every dollar we have available - what happens then? *Rhetorical question only* :rantoff:
 
polgara said:
:agree: If I understand correctly, the "wealthier" countries on this planet will be expected to pay a tax to help the poorer countries handle problems such as famine, drought, lack of safe drinking water, etc. The last I read was that the US "invoice" from the UN will be $1 billion dollars per year. :wow: There goes any plans for replacing our crumbling 100-year-old underground water pipe infrastructure which is already causing problems in many parts of our country, and that's only one problem we face. We have millions of people in this country that rely on our government for food and housing to survive - where is all the money going to come from to pay for everything? Our debt already exceeds $21 trillion dollars and climbing, but I haven't heard any suggestions on what to do when the interest alone on that debt takes every dollar we have available - what happens then? *Rhetorical question only* :rantoff:
Click to expand...

Whilst $1billion per year seems a lot, as you point out the debt is 21 thousand times as much.

Given that the UN is a sort of vehicle for making the world into a nice place along the lines of the Western democracies and is part of the spectacular sucess of our collective cultural conquest of everywhere we have not militarily invaded, we have lost there, it seems to be very good value.

Also the extraction of money from the poor of the world via fixing the price of food with biofuel transfers vastly more money to the rich in the West than all of us spend in supporting the internalional bodies that spread democracy.
 
polgara said:
:agree: If I understand correctly, the "wealthier" countries on this planet will be expected to pay a tax to help the poorer countries handle problems such as famine, drought, lack of safe drinking water, etc. The last I read was that the US "invoice" from the UN will be $1 billion dollars per year. :wow: There goes any plans for replacing our crumbling 100-year-old underground water pipe infrastructure which is already causing problems in many parts of our country, and that's only one problem we face. We have millions of people in this country that rely on our government for food and housing to survive - where is all the money going to come from to pay for everything? Our debt already exceeds $21 trillion dollars and climbing, but I haven't heard any suggestions on what to do when the interest alone on that debt takes every dollar we have available - what happens then? *Rhetorical question only* :rantoff:
Click to expand...

Good news: we're not going to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom