|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 9, 2010 6:44:47 GMT
Senators Question Flawed NASA Climate DataWritten by Alex Newman Monday, 05 April 2010 10:47 The New American
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 9, 2010 22:55:23 GMT
Senators Fooled by CEI Propaganda Spread By Fox News would be a better title.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 10, 2010 8:41:06 GMT
Senators Fooled by CEI Propaganda Spread By Fox News would be a better title. Its especially humiliating to NASA when they have say the dog ate their raw data so they can't prove it is or it isn't. . . .so I suppose they won't be refuting it.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 10, 2010 14:11:41 GMT
You can download the raw station data.
The skeptics are just whistling in the wind with lazy excuses to deny.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 10, 2010 14:42:42 GMT
Socold: To deny? Or demand accountability. I think the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 10, 2010 15:19:47 GMT
The article is complete bull. It isn't about demanding accountability, it's about spinning and distorting facts to create an attack on the science. Read the emails yourself: pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdfThis is why scientists don't like handing out data to these skeptics, because they spin it into accusations and try to convince people that the science is flawed with misleading reasons.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Apr 10, 2010 16:20:01 GMT
The article is complete bull. It isn't about demanding accountability, it's about spinning and distorting facts to create an attack on the science. Read the emails yourself: pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdfThis is why scientists don't like handing out data to these skeptics, because they spin it into accusations and try to convince people that the science is flawed with misleading reasons. I've read the emails and I've talked directly to the people who were asking for the data and mentioned in the emails. You are full of male bovine excrement.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 10, 2010 16:27:01 GMT
Wrong emails. Evidentially you didn't even bother going to the link.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 10, 2010 16:47:04 GMT
SoCold: We have been over this before. The temp data, the REAL raw data that I finally obtained a few months ago for my area. MY area does not coincide at all with NASA data. It took me over a year of prying to finally get that data. My state climatologist agreed with my findings that the national data portrayed for my area is flat out wrong. Ok..if mine is wrong, how much other data is wrong. My state climatologist is a very strong supporter of AGW. He tried every which way but loose to make the data match the NASA/NOAA data..and in no way shape of from could he do that. Now mind you, I am only talking an area of 1,000's of square miles. Approx 30,000 sq miles to be precise. The biggest flaws were in the historical data that NOAA/NASA seems to be using verses the actual....and I do mean actual temps that were recorded. Anyways. it is veryyyyy correct to question the integrity of the data. I find it rather funny in that 7 years ago I was an ardent believer in AGW. The science since that time has revealed that AGW is not NEARLY as pronounced as I once believed. In fact, the current science actually shows it to be very flawed in hypothosis. I am smart enough to recognize what has been revealed in the past 7 years. I think of Alfred Wegener each time I come accross a died in the wool flat earth person. You are smart, that is evident in your posts. But, I am begining to fear that your knowledge base stopped a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 10, 2010 16:51:09 GMT
Below is a diagram depicting the flow and intermediate stages of station temperature data in context of global temperature record results. This is very much preliminary and a work in progress. There are additional elements to add and some to modify, but already it provides enough of an overview to spot strange issues with skeptic arguments. Full size image: img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/ononelk782/climatedata.pngIt shows the flow of data from the recordings made at temperature stations, available from the National Meterological Offices (NMOs) of the respective countries. Snapshots of this data have been collected into databases at various times. Phil Jones took directly from such databases and possibly NMOs themselves and made some initial corrections to the data, but subsequently lost that copy. This is depicted by the red arrow. Where data can be obtained by the public I have added a blue line. The number of blue lines on the diagram directly challenges skeptic claims that such data to is not made available and is somehow hidden. The diagram also shows that Phil Jones record is reproduced by NASA's own analysis and if you trace the flow of data through you'll see that nothing Jones lost (or indeed did) affects the NASA analysis anyway. So again we see skeptic claims that global temperature record is in doubt because of anything Jones did are false. You can also see that the data is available at various points for anyone to check the scientific result themselves. So skeptic claims that global temperature records cannot be checked are shown to be false. The graph also shows that not only is the input data into the NASA analysis publically and freely available, but the source code is too and the methodology described in published papers. This challenges skeptic claims that insufficient data or methodology are available to carry out a re-analysis. In short the "interpretation" the skeptics have been pushing that Jones's lost data casts the scientific results into doubt is wrong. We see that they've completely ignored the NASA analysis, with it's publically available source code and input data that would allow skeptics to replicate the work. They've also ignored other possible avenues of scientific verification such as collecting data from GHCN and doing the analysis themselves, or even collecting data from the NMOs themselves. As I expand this diagram more interesting things will become apparent too. For example we'll see the parallel work on satellite records and how they confirm warming in recent decades. This will also highlight that the source code for these satellite analyses are not publically available. This will ask the challenging question of skeptics as to their agenda as to why have they demanded so much of CRU but given the satellite records a free pass. There have been no requests by skeptics for raw satellite data, not attempts to "audit" it. No FOIA requests, no claims that the results are questionable. Why? I will make sure to note on the diagram that the UAH satellite record is compiled by a prominent manmade global warming skeptic, which I believe is the only possible explanation for why skeptics are not interested in challenging (read discrediting) it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 10, 2010 22:17:55 GMT
Below is a diagram depicting the flow and intermediate stages of station temperature data in context of global temperature record results. This is very much preliminary and a work in progress. There are additional elements to add and some to modify, but already it provides enough of an overview to spot strange issues with skeptic arguments. Full size image: img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/ononelk782/climatedata.pngIt shows the flow of data from the recordings made at temperature stations, available from the National Meterological Offices (NMOs) of the respective countries. Snapshots of this data have been collected into databases at various times. Phil Jones took directly from such databases and possibly NMOs themselves and made some initial corrections to the data, but subsequently lost that copy. This is depicted by the red arrow. Where data can be obtained by the public I have added a blue line. The number of blue lines on the diagram directly challenges skeptic claims that such data to is not made available and is somehow hidden. The diagram also shows that Phil Jones record is reproduced by NASA's own analysis and if you trace the flow of data through you'll see that nothing Jones lost (or indeed did) affects the NASA analysis anyway. So again we see skeptic claims that global temperature record is in doubt because of anything Jones did are false. You can also see that the data is available at various points for anyone to check the scientific result themselves. So skeptic claims that global temperature records cannot be checked are shown to be false. The graph also shows that not only is the input data into the NASA analysis publically and freely available, but the source code is too and the methodology described in published papers. This challenges skeptic claims that insufficient data or methodology are available to carry out a re-analysis. In short the "interpretation" the skeptics have been pushing that Jones's lost data casts the scientific results into doubt is wrong. We see that they've completely ignored the NASA analysis, with it's publically available source code and input data that would allow skeptics to replicate the work. They've also ignored other possible avenues of scientific verification such as collecting data from GHCN and doing the analysis themselves, or even collecting data from the NMOs themselves. As I expand this diagram more interesting things will become apparent too. For example we'll see the parallel work on satellite records and how they confirm warming in recent decades. This will also highlight that the source code for these satellite analyses are not publically available. This will ask the challenging question of skeptics as to their agenda as to why have they demanded so much of CRU but given the satellite records a free pass. There have been no requests by skeptics for raw satellite data, not attempts to "audit" it. No FOIA requests, no claims that the results are questionable. Why? I will make sure to note on the diagram that the UAH satellite record is compiled by a prominent manmade global warming skeptic, which I believe is the only possible explanation for why skeptics are not interested in challenging (read discrediting) it. Will you ever begin citing sources for pictures and graphs? Ever hear of RSS? socold, why is the surface warming faster than the LT? What did NOAA mean when they saidWhy We Need A USCRN
One of the principal conclusions of the 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme was that the global capacity to observe the Earth’s climate system is inadequate and deteriorating worldwide and “without action to reverse this decline and develop the GCOS, the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century” ( National Research Council [NRC] 1999). In spite of the United States being a leader in climate research, we do not have, in fact, an observing network capable of ensuring long-term climate records free of time-dependent biases. Even small biases can alter the interpretation of decadal climate variability and change.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 10, 2010 22:26:21 GMT
magellan, why haven't skeptics requested the UAH satellite record source code and raw data?
Why are skeptics trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done?
Why are skeptics falsely claiming the NASA analysis uses data from Jones?
After you answer these I will post more questions for you.
In the image, the CRU graph is CRUTEM, the NASA graph is GISTEMP meteorological stations only (in both cases it's stations only - no ocean)
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 10, 2010 23:40:06 GMT
magellan, why haven't skeptics requested the UAH satellite record source code and raw data? Why are skeptics trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done? Why are skeptics falsely claiming the NASA analysis uses data from Jones? After you answer these I will post more questions for you. In the image, the CRU graph is CRUTEM, the NASA graph is GISTEMP meteorological stations only (in both cases it's stations only - no ocean) pajamasmedia.com/files/2010/03/GISS-says-CRU-Better0001.pdfwattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/giss_is_inferior.pngWhich one do you think is inferior? Why are skeptics trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done?
Probably because people who've had many years of experience in metrology understand at the very best the global surface station record is a guess, not even an estimation. I posted links on Metrology 101. If applied to climate science and they had to pass an audit, it would be a Major failure and their certification would be pulled. It is a complete joke, and as I've already posted just recently and you did not respond to, NOAA has admitted as such in a professionally courteous way magellan, why haven't skeptics requested the UAH satellite record source code and raw data? Who would know what to do with it? Also, no other temperature data has been through more anal exams than UAH. Nonetheless, some have been asking for source code. RSS has it. In fact RSS was supposed to be the savior for AGW, but in the end UAH was found to be the more reliable. Should we also ask for the source code of radiosondes? Let's see, UAH does not use radiosonde or surface to calibrate, but just happens to correlate well with radiosonde data. magicjava.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-john-christy-on-uah-source-code.htmlI tend to think Christy is an honest person.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 11, 2010 2:45:11 GMT
Why are skeptics trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done?
Probably because people who've had many years of experience in metrology understand at the very best the global surface station record is a guess, not even an estimation. What does that have to do with Jones? In fact your statement sounds like an admission that the global surface temperature record doesn't hinge on anything Jones has or hasn't done. Is this what you are saying? If so surely you can answer my question - why are skeptics (not necessarily you) trying to pretend the global surface temperature record hinges on anything Jones has or hasn't done? That's got to be the worst excuse ever coming from a skeptic! You guys usually want all the t's crossed and i's dotted (way beyond the necessary in my opinion), but here you clearly are just giving UAH a free pass. If we don't know what to do with it, it must be correct! No need to audit that! That's a great claim given you've just claimed noone other than Roy Spencer and John Christy know what to do with the source code and data. So who did these exams? This is all fine with me understand, it's in line with how I think science works. But for skeptics you guys should be absolutely fuming mad that the UAH result hasn't been audited - and by audit you guys usually require all the raw data, the source code and intermediate working out too. But not so interested in UAH. Why? Is it because UAH is compiled by two prominent global warming skeptics? That's the rub you see because skeptics are keen to stress their "audit" ways of doing things - requesting all the raw data and source code - is just "good for science". But if that's the case then why isn't it good for UAH? No, the skeptics ignoring UAH suggests that the "audit" way of doing things is merely a means of attack on scientists and scientific results they don't like. I don't think there's much difference between the two, since that significant error in UAH was found and fixed a few years ago. Why doesn't someone FOIA for the UAH source code? Then we'd get it pretty immediately. Do you think that's a good idea? Skeptics usually seem to think that kind of move advances the science. I can only imagine the inconvenience and hassle this would cause Christy and Spencer though. Having to dump the code as-is in some zip file rather than getting to publish it neatly on a website. Imagine if a not-Christy-or-Lindzen climate scientist had responded to requests for data by saying "we are thinking of doing it but we don't know when it will be done". Would skeptics just kind of leave it at that? Suuuure.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Apr 11, 2010 4:06:44 GMT
Actually SoCold, Dr. Spencer and Christy have offered their code, data etc to anyone who wants it. Could be that being it is publicly funded that they knew it had to be publicly available so kept the data. Write them and ask them for it. I don' t have the expertise to understand how they do it. I do have the expertise to do surface data, and have found it to be something to be desired. I know you dn't like hearing that, but that is just the way it is.
|
|