“1. GISS discuss errors on their global temperature estimates in pretty much all of their papers describing GISTEMP. Have you read them? Have you noticed the error bars on the GISS charts? What more do you need?”

Please answer the question. If you find my pointing this out, again and again to be “rude” I most profusely apologize. But please – answer the question. Do error estimates for the US average annual anomaly for 1934 and 1998 exist, if so – what are they?

“2. How could they not when the anomalies are equal?”

The anomalies are not equal. They differ by at least 0.2 degC.

“3. Still you seem not to understand that comparing unadjusted data would not be meaningful. See the mountain analogy, and if you think it doesn’t apply, explain why.”

Your mountain analogy is ludicrous. Each of the observers is measuring relative elevation. Most likely they are measuring an angle. And in fact, previous to GPS, such measurements usually involved multiple measurements of elevation angles and distances from different positions – the measurements are subject to error, as are the location of the “known” positions. The trigonometric process of distilling these measurements into an estimated height has nothing whatsoever to do with the process of adjusting climate data. In fact, such a simple mathematical process allows for wonderfully simple error propagation. Our hypothetical surveyors, unlike you, should have no problem quoting the error bars on his mountain measurement.

Regardless, back to climate data, either the adjustment is within the error bounds of the raw data or it is not. Which is it? If it is within the error bounds, then I assume you are would allow that the error bars on the raw 1998 anomaly are at least +/-0.2 degC? Is that correct?

“4. Again, all of this kind of thing is discussed in GISS papers. Maybe you should contact GISS with these questions. Why do you expect me to know their products so intimately?”

You made the claim of the statistical tie, which, given that I cannot find any actual estimates for the error bars on either the raw or adjusted anomaly for the US for 1934 and 1998, means that if you are correct, you must in fact know their products more intimately than I. My sincerest apologies that you find my simple request that you share your information to be so “rude”, “classless”, and “inappropriate”. Clearly, I am out of line.

None the less, you seem to be at least attempting, now, to discuss science. So, here are some answers.

1. GISS discuss errors on their global temperature estimates in pretty much all of their papers describing GISTEMP. Have you read them? Have you noticed the error bars on the GISS charts? What more do you need?
2. How could they not when the anomalies are equal?
3. Still you seem not to understand that comparing unadjusted data would not be meaningful. See the mountain analogy, and if you think it doesn’t apply, explain why.
4. Again, all of this kind of thing is discussed in GISS papers. Maybe you should contact GISS with these questions. Why do you expect me to know their products so intimately?

“When I asked you what point you were trying to make, you made it clear your point was only to attack me and there was no wider issue you were interested in tackling. Have you thought of one yet?”

Jennifer, I’ve amply expressed what I am trying to get at. If you haven’t figured it out yet, you are simply not listening. Let me summarize.

Personally I don’t think anything like proper scientific error bounds exist for measurements of global average temperature. You certainly have not provided any such information. If there are no such error bounds, talking about a “statistical ties” is meaningless. If such error bounds exist, talking about statistical ties might be meaningful. Thought those error bars might include the entire history of measurement, in which case just about everything would be a statistical tie. Or the adjustment which resulted in your claimed tie might itself lie outside of the error bound, which would be a truly fascinating result.

So please Jennifer, answer the following questions if you can:
a) Do the error bars for the 1934 and 1998 annual US temperature anomaly exist? If so, what are they?
b) Do the error bars encompass the difference between the 1934 and 1998 anomalies? If so, what other years do they encompass?
c) If the error bars do not confirm a “statistical tie” before adjustment, how can an adjustment fall outside of the error bounds? Isn’t the adjustment supposed to correct for error?
d) Are the adjustments made for time of observation exact? If so, please explain what methodology is capable of taking a min/max measurement, made at a particular time of day, and adjusting it to the exact min/max that would have been measured if the reading were taken at midnight? If this is not an exact process (and it isn’t) what error does this adjustment introduce into the measurement?

These are direct questions about the data and the procedures used to adjust it. Simple, straightforward – they are not an attack on you. I will continue to repeat them until you answer, or you stop responding.

Can you see why, in my analogy about measuring mountain heights, you would have to take into account the height of the plateau to compare the two measurements? The raw data would be meaningless. In a similar way, until you’ve accounted for differences in the way temperatures are measured, like the time of observation bias, your raw data is not meaningful.

When I asked you what point you were trying to make, you made it clear your point was only to attack me and there was no wider issue you were interested in tackling. Have you thought of one yet? Why are you getting so upset that 1998 and 1934 were about as warm as each other on one small part of the world? For what reason do you wish to disprove this idea? If you did manage to disprove it, what significance would that have?

Unless you can be constructive, and discuss the data and the interpretation and not me, then I have nothing more to say. Your fixation on the temperatures in two particular years in one particular part of the globe is not interesting or useful.

I am still waiting for an answer to my question, I have grown tired of repeating it, so you will have to look up stream if you have forgotten. As for your claim that the anomalies are exactly the same for the two year – preposterous. The adjusted numbers are not the data. The data is the measured number, plus the error bars. The reason I am interested in this is because I want to know a) if the adjustment falls within the error bars. b) what are the size of the error bars relative to the adjusted and measured anomaly.

As I have said previously, I am more than willing to admit that there is a statistical tie between the two years. You have yet to provide any scientific evidence of such a claim. Saying “Look here, when you take the raw data, and calibrate it, using a very complex statistical process, you come up with numbers we can add to the measure data, that makes the data identical” is somewhat laughable. It’s statistical naivety at best – statistically you can’t decrease measurement uncertainty without making more measurements. So whatever you are doing with your adjustments, you can’t make the claim that the adjusted number is any better than the original number from a statistical standpoint.