de discussie of er nu wel of niet global warming plaatsvind. Ik zal hieronder een gedeelte van de mailing uittypen die op internet werd gezet na de hacking van emails van klimaatonderzoekers. Daarin blijkt wel degelijk dat er bewust is geklooit met ruwe data. Ik ontken geen global climat change.. Ik ben zeker geen denier.. Maar ik verzet me ertegen dat wij de gewone mensen hier de schuld van zijn en hier voor moeten gaan betalen.
From: gs120@columbia.edu
To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov
Cc: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: moremcintyre
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:37:17 -0400
Thanks. That becomes clearer. I think that the suggestion you have for fixing it is a better idea than what is being done now, though possibly it might make more sense to correct the later GHCN data rather than the earkier USHCN numbers (that doesn't make a difference to trhe trend ofcourse).
Gavin
Quoting Reto Ruedy:
Gavin,
In 2000, SHCN provided us with the product in wich the US data were adjusted for changes in procedure/insrumentation to get a consistent time record. According to the description on their current website, 1999 was their last comprehensive update of those data. Unlike the GHCN data, the USHCN data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the seem to end in 2002).
Under the assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data, we replacing the US part of the GHCN data up to 1999 by the USHCN data that we got in 2000, thereby eliminating some known systematic biases in the early part of the US records.
However, that assumption may not have been correct. I compared the 1999 data in GHCN and USHCN. Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remainig 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data. The differences averaged out to 0.1 C, i.e. we may have introduced a +0.1C jump over the US by our procedure.
A most carefull method would have been to compare the last few years of the USHCN data and the corresponding years of the GHCN data and adjust the USHCN data to fit the GHCN data. I'll add this prodecure as an alternative to see what effect it would have.
Reto
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 13:21 -0400, gs210@columbia.edu wrote:
If you didn't see it:
http://climateeaudit.org/?p=1854
There is something curious here though, why does 'GISS raw' go back to 'USHCN unadjusted' in 2000. Shouldn't it have stayed with USHCN+TOBS?
Gavin
PS. If this is all as it should be, we need to make clear the reason why very quickly. Otherwise, the myth of the 'Hansen Y2K error' will be around the place and once it's out, it won't go away.
Dit is slechts het begin...
Groeten
Arjan
From: gs120@columbia.edu
To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov
Cc: jhansen@giss.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: moremcintyre
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:37:17 -0400
Thanks. That becomes clearer. I think that the suggestion you have for fixing it is a better idea than what is being done now, though possibly it might make more sense to correct the later GHCN data rather than the earkier USHCN numbers (that doesn't make a difference to trhe trend ofcourse).
Gavin
Quoting Reto Ruedy
Gavin,
In 2000, SHCN provided us with the product in wich the US data were adjusted for changes in procedure/insrumentation to get a consistent time record. According to the description on their current website, 1999 was their last comprehensive update of those data. Unlike the GHCN data, the USHCN data are not routinely kept up-to-date (at this point the seem to end in 2002).
Under the assumption that the adjustments made the older data consistent with future data, we replacing the US part of the GHCN data up to 1999 by the USHCN data that we got in 2000, thereby eliminating some known systematic biases in the early part of the US records.
However, that assumption may not have been correct. I compared the 1999 data in GHCN and USHCN. Indeed, in 490 of the 1057 stations the USHCN data were up to 1C colder than the corresponding GHCN data, in 77 stations the data were the same, and in the remainig 490 stations the USHCN data were warmer than the GHCN data. The differences averaged out to 0.1 C, i.e. we may have introduced a +0.1C jump over the US by our procedure.
A most carefull method would have been to compare the last few years of the USHCN data and the corresponding years of the GHCN data and adjust the USHCN data to fit the GHCN data. I'll add this prodecure as an alternative to see what effect it would have.
Reto
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 13:21 -0400, gs210@columbia.edu wrote:
If you didn't see it:
http://climateeaudit.org/?p=1854
There is something curious here though, why does 'GISS raw' go back to 'USHCN unadjusted' in 2000. Shouldn't it have stayed with USHCN+TOBS?
Gavin
PS. If this is all as it should be, we need to make clear the reason why very quickly. Otherwise, the myth of the 'Hansen Y2K error' will be around the place and once it's out, it won't go away.
Dit is slechts het begin...
Groeten
Arjan
Bericht laatst bijgewerkt: 23-02-2010 00:25
