• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

The scandal of fiddled global warming data

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The scandal of fiddled global warming data

    The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

    The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record

    #2
    BP

    let me ask you a quiz question.
    Imagine your great great gandaddy took a look at his thermometer and it read 20c.
    Imagine, for the sake of argument it was an official measurement at an official site.

    so it goes into the record.
    100 years later, they make a graph - that data point says 20c.
    200 years later - 20c
    300 years later - 20c


    at the present time, what would the data point on the graph be ?

    If you said 20c, you would be wrong.

    The climate geniuses dont believe in measurements any more. They believe in adjusted measurements.

    and , guess what. The adjustments ALWAYS support the great CAGW scam
    (\__/)
    (>'.'<)
    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

    Comment


      #3
      Really? Do we have to? Again?

      Let us do what those who call themselves sceptics rarely seem to do, and apply some actual scepticism.

      Firstly these claims are being made by Christopher Booker, a man with a long history of publishing nonsense and costing his publishers reputational and financial damage (The Amazongate apology, the Pachauri apology etc),whose book on the topic opened with a made-up quotation and went downhill from there.

      Is Booker citing some new research or academic study? Erm no, that would be a first. He refers to the website of 'Steven Goddard', a blogger who once wrote on Arctic Ice for Anthony Watts and the Register but lost the gig for again, publishing such Tulip that even Watts gave him the push (for non climate geeks, let me assure you that is a high bar). Maybe Booker likes 'Goddard' because he too was forced to issue a retraction of his nonsense and apologise after a real polar scientist complained that a piece in El Reg

      consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
      Not looking good then, but let us not fall victim to the ad hominem fallacy. and take the claim on its face. Is the data being 'fiddled' (and does it matter?).

      One would expect that anyone seriously wanting to 'fiddle' data would not publish the details of their manipulations in the literature and on their websites alongside the raw 'unfiddled' data and source code to apply the 'fiddles'. But that is exactly what the agencies concerned do. I cannot find the source of the unlikely claim that the official US trend is 3C/century as opposed to a slight cooling in the raw data and I am certainly not going to waste time at Goddard's site looking for it. However it is correct that the data are adjusted, in an attempt to remove known biases introduced as stations move, observations are made at different time of the day, thermometers and screens change. It is as accurate to say that these adjustments are all in the same direction as it is to say that Greenpeace have been kicked out of India.

      The other adjustment is homogenisation, adjusting data according to readings from surrounding stations. So if a station moves, say, to a higher, cooler location the algorithm attempts to calculate what offset should be applied to newer readings to be consistent with the old, by comparison with surrounding stations, as more data is accumulated the algorithm may retrospectively adjust the calculation, so yes, historic readings may change, entirely legitimately.

      These claims have been examined many, many times in the literature and the adjustments found to be effective and necessary, not least by the Berkeley Earth project which came up with a novel method of avoiding the need for homogenisation, and confirmed the conclusions made based on the 'fiddled' data.

      A true sceptic would also wonder about the effect of the US being just 2% of the Earth's surface and the inconvenient fact that the 'unfiddled' satellite record confirms the allegedly fiddled surface station results.

      So, the sceptical answer to the questions, is the US data being fiddled? No, not in any reasonable definition of the term. Would it affect our overall understanding if they were? Not much.

      The only scandal here is that the Telegraph continues to give Booker a platform to publish his ridiculous noodling.
      Last edited by pjclarke; 23 June 2014, 20:06.
      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

      Comment


        #4
        TVW v3
        I'm alright Jack

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by pjclarke View Post
          Not looking good then, but let us not fall victim to the ad hominem fallacy.
          Check the sig

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
            Its Don! Hooray!

            On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic.
            Letter to the Bellingham Herald. Signed by every member of the Geology Faculty at WWU.

            Now what would a sceptic make of that? Conspiracy?

            Reading the Washington Landscape: The Don Easterbrook Problem
            My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

            Comment


              #7
              Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data. – John Christy
              IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc.

              John Christy is the Climate Scientist who measures Global Temperature using a Satellite.
              Last edited by BlasterBates; 23 June 2014, 20:57.
              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #8
                Well, he's one of two lead scientists at UAH who do so, there are other organisations and other scientists ...

                Climate misinformer: John Christy
                My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                  If you said 20c, you would be wrong.

                  The climate geniuses dont believe in measurements any more. They believe in adjusted measurements.

                  and , guess what. The adjustments ALWAYS support the great CAGW scam
                  That reminds me of possibly the best statistics lesson I ever had, courtesy of the Psychology department at uni.
                  • Take a for/against poll of opinions on a couple of controversial subjects.
                  • Discuss those subjects
                  • Take another poll to see if anyone has changed their mind as a result of the discussions
                  • Apply some stats magic


                  The result was that 2 out of 6 girls changed their votes, and 2 out of 6 blokes changed their votes.

                  Common sense would say there was no difference between the sexes in the result.

                  Yet the stats produced by the lecturer claimed a significant difference in how each sex responded to the experiment.

                  We gave up at that point. Resistance (or indeed logic) was futile.
                  Behold the warranty -- the bold print giveth and the fine print taketh away.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    One thing they've done consistently is "cool the past". So whatever they're claiming the temperature is now will get adjusted downwards in a few years.

                    So it obviously isn't as hot as they say it is.
                    I'm alright Jack

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X