Comment

Overnight Ocean

366
Walter L. Newton12/01/2009 8:43:07 am PST

re: #354 lostlakehiker

You go. It will help if you read as much as possible before plunging into the nitty gritty of data processing. You will need to know, for example, that there are two “constants” for temperature change with altitude. When you ascend in an airplane, the temperature generally drops by X degrees per thousand feet. When you ascend a slope, it’s Y, and Y is less than X. There may be adjustments for humidity, whether it’s a mountain or a general rise in the lay of the land, and so forth. Taking into account everything vital from climate science, to go along with your own expertise in data, will be a big job. Let’s say you do good work.

Getting it taken seriously will then be a challenge. Outsiders with good work find themselves in the same pool with cranks and babes-in-the-woods, and the general tendency among veteran researchers in a field is to blow them all off. Ramanujan had the good fortune to send his letter to somebody in England (Hardy) who could discern the good stuff from the dross. We know of instances in the other direction where good work was only vindicated retrospectively.

First off, I’ve been a data analyst and programmer for over 25 years. And I am not talking about creating a new dataset, I am talking about learning all I can about the Hadcrute3 dataset and how credible is the current version of the dataset is.

And when I say credible, I am not talking about AGW. I am talking about the methods used to collect the data, the way the dataset was amended, modified and records deleted.

Currently CRU claims they cannot recreate the connections between the temperature reading, the source of the readings (IE: NCAR, GHCN, NMS, NOAA and some misc sources) and the location in the grid. That’s a problem right from the git go.