Saw this just now which sums up a lot of the criticisms of the global databases.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/20/demet....ing/#more-11488
Craig Loehle
Posted Jul 21, 2010 at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Reply
IF data homogenization/cleaning were done with publicly available codes, it might be ok to prefer the cleaned up data. However, in too many cases the “fixes” have turned out to be nonsense.
Early versions of the Hadley data claimed that they adjusted their data by eye.
We have seen GISS “adjust” perfectly good rural stations based on urban ones.
“Adjusted” and “homogenized” data end up having a bigger trend than pure rural stations.
The urban heat island effect is claimed to have been removed from the global data (GISS) or to be ignored (Hadley) when clearly it has not been removed and can not be ignored.
Rural stations have been dropping out of the database (the great dying of thermometers) (even though the stations still exist in most cases) and it is pretended that this can’t have any effect. etc.
In paleoclimate studies, we have seen evidence ignored that strip barks pines have anomalous growth , Tiljander proxies used upside down, lat-long locations transposed, and these errors are never acknowledged or fixed.
So people are not happy with the adjustments and would really like to see what is going on, in detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment