It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sure. That's what you meant.
The raw data in this case would be the "adjustments" and how and why the original raw data was adjusted.
That's why independent researchers used different datasets to examine the conclusions of K15.
How can the data set be independent verified without knowing what the adjustments were
“Science is all about uncertainty,” he continues. “The problem in a lot of cases is that people interpret, ‘This is uncertain,’ as, ‘We know nothing.’ Scientists have said multiple times that we're 95 percent certain that the majority of warming in recent years is due to humans. Ninety-five percent is a pretty good number. If 19 out of 20 doctors you talked to said that you had a tumor, you probably would want to do something about that, even if that one out of 20 was less sure.”
I questioned another co-author about why they choose to use a 90% confidence threshold for evaluating the statistical significance of surface temperature trends, instead of the standard for significance of 95% — he also expressed reluctance and did not defend the decision. A NOAA NCEI supervisor remarked how it was eye-opening to watch Karl work the co-authors, mostly subtly but sometimes not, pushing choices to emphasize warming. Gradually, in the months after K15 came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’—in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets—in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.
Berkley Earth specifically states that K15 had a 95 % confidence interval. Dr. Bates specifically identifies a 90 % confidence interval.
What data exactly did Berkley Earth review? Obviously one is not like the other?
… Last night Texas Republican Lamar Smith, US House of Representatives Science Committee chairman thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. …
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
What data exactly did Berkley Earth review?
They used the raw data.
We show that ERSST version 4 trends generally agree with largely independent, near-global, and instrumentally homogeneous SST measurements from floating buoys, Argo floats, and radiometer-based satellite measurements that have been developed and deployed during the past two decades. We find a large cooling bias in ERSST version 3b and smaller but significant cooling biases in HadSST3 and COBE-SST from 2003 to the present, with respect to most series examined. These results suggest that reported rates of SST warming in recent years have been underestimated in these three data sets.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee
Yeah. There you go.
You think he's going to ask Bates what he thinks about the AGW hoax?
They never examined the raw data from K15, which is the data upon which the pausebuster study is based, because the raw data was never properly archived and was unavailable. The Pausebuster study was based on a data set which used only a 90 % confidence interval.
What do you think will happen if Congressman Smith starts looking around?