This from Anthony Watts, friend of PJM and occasional contributor:
Please have a look at this, and thank the Japanese.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/31/japans-cool-hand-luke-moment-for-surface-temperature/
BTW, in case it isn’t obvious, this find throws the “hottest ever” claims of NOAA/NCDC/NASA into serious question, since the temperature peaks of the last decade are well below that of the NOAA/NASA/Met office data set.
What are they going to say, that Japanese scientists “did it wrong” when they cite it in their own publications?
What we really need to see is the unadjusted CLIMAT data reports plotted prior to 2000. I’m betting NCDC will be loathe to do that, for obvious reasons.
Read the whole thing, but basically the difference between warming in US models and no-warming in the Japanese models comed from the systematic adjustments applied.
Update
Just to be clear here, these data are not the result of a prospective, predictive sort of climate model; however, the way the raw data is combined into a curve and the adjustments applied are the result of a statistical model.
“Statistical model” = filter. Basically.
“the difference between warming in US models and no-warming in the Japanese models comed from the systematic adjustments applied.”
the difference…conned from the systematic adjustments.
Fixed it for you Charley.
… where “conn” means “1. ( tr ) to direct the steering of (a vessel)”.
Cheers
Is it a statistical model? Or did they just look at non-conforming data and massage it for various reasons while not applying the same adjustments to the entire data set? And why are the adjustments always upwards for current temperatures and downwards for older ones? It is almost like they are rigging the game.
That *is* a statistical model.
“All models are wrong, but some are useful.”
Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces (1987), George E. P. Box and Norman R. Draper, p. 424
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Behold a pale horse, and his name that sat upon it was Statistical Model.
I’m stealing that.
Isn’t it interesting how much more robust the academic discussion of global warming has become since the climategate email release exposed how journals were being manipulated and pressured to exclude articles reporting contrary findings or disputing the “settled science.?”
Everyone reading just have at least some inkling of the gapping holes in warmist doctrine.
But, going beyond, you might want to consider the entire government-backed scientific enterprise, and its support for the current political class. Here scientists claim to want to implement policies to prevent losses to climate change decades away, with supposedly solid date.
And yet much of the scientific community supports our fiscal-train-wreck of a government, which flounces economic feel-good data even when the blogosphere rips apart the assumptions, within hours. Where is the scientific community when it comes to exposing liberal pipe dreams, like gun regulation?
A few decades ago Solzhenitsyn, with the credibility of a foundation in hard-science, was willing to all the Soviet fantasy to account. Where is our Solzhenitsyn, to call to account the liberal fantasy?