|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 27, 2015 5:54:42 GMT
Thought this subject deserved its own thread... Paul Homewood takes a look at Paraguay’s Temperature Record & discovers all station data sets have been subject to adjustments: These warming adjustments have taken place at every single, currently operational site in Paraguay.And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse; how does GISS compensate for the effect of urban heat (UHI)? Why, it cools the past (of course)!!! Link:https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/all-of-paraguays-temperature-record-has-been-tampered-with/#more-12774 Data sources: Raw GHCN data to 2011. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/GHCN Adj data data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/GISS Homgenised data data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 27, 2015 17:41:19 GMT
I hate to say it - because I work with them - but I wouldn't trust anything from some parts of NASA or NOAA. They have no ethics and they have nothing to lose by lying. Gavin quite happily stirred the pot claiming that 2014 was the hottest year ever. It was only the blogs that highlighted that he had no backing for that and had actually buried plausible deniability into the report that the press releases were based on. Won't affect his pay or pension. If he'd been a CFO he would have been taken to court for fraud.
The real world will eventually catch up with them - what is it that they can gain in the short term that makes dissembling worthwhile?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 27, 2015 18:16:20 GMT
nautonnier: I have come to the conclusion that they actually believe their drivel. NO one can lie that long, with such robust lying and not actually believe what they are lying about.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 27, 2015 18:46:36 GMT
nautonnier: I have come to the conclusion that they actually believe their drivel. NO one can lie that long, with such robust lying and not actually believe what they are lying about. For the CEO that is going to get sued for fraud, it doesn't matter if he believes it or not. The only thing that matters is should he have believed it or not. For a person with training in the scientific method believing something that is totally unsupported by science isn't true belief. Fact is belief is a very cheap commodity when there is no assignment of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Jan 27, 2015 20:43:43 GMT
I think this is a really interesting thread. Anyone who has relevant data should add it.
At the moment, the Australian Met Office is subject to an enquiry into "temperature adjustments". Unfortunately, I doubt whether any knowledgeable critics have been included in the review panel
If I recall correctly, the NZ Met Office was accused of the same, except that they threw away the raw data, which made investigation difficult..
A future generation will look back on this process with awe. Shades of Lysenko.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 28, 2015 5:39:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Jan 28, 2015 16:38:53 GMT
The Paraguay case above seems pretty damning. Hopefully, sufficient pressure will be applied to force a response in the UK.
I think James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt at Nasa and Tom Karl at NOAA believed that the global warming in 1977 through 1998 was caused by CO2 and there was a chance it would continue and perhaps accelerate. Their pronouncements made them rich and famous. They became the darlings of the environmentalists. The environment groups have raised extraordinary amounts of money based on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) and most of the money went into the pockets of the environmentalists themselves, their lobbyists and the politicians they funded. In addition climate scientists in general have seen their incomes and speaking fees and grants climb far above anything they had experienced prior to the CAGW era and their prestige (the PHd's objective function)soared.
The earth is not warming as predicted and it's clear that CO2 Has nowhere near the impact we were told it did but the good life is hard to give up. Lying, stretching the truth and biased research is necessary to sustain their incomes and prestige when the facts don't support the CAGW case.
And, it's sad to say that there's little downside for government employees who mislead the public and the media provides cover rather than unbiased investigation.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 28, 2015 18:26:59 GMT
Hear Hear Duwayne.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 28, 2015 21:39:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 30, 2015 5:51:37 GMT
Paul Homewood reminds his readers that the adjustments are global: Greenland: Iceland: Russia: Australia: None of these are isolated instances, and there are other similar adjustments at other stations in these countries. You might also note that these are all long running and complete, or near complete, records. It is often claimed that these adjustments are needed to “correct” errors in the historic record, or compensate for station moves. All of which makes the adjustment at Valentia Observatory even more nonsensical Valentia Observatory, situated in SW Ireland, is regarded as one of the highest quality meteorological stations in the world, located at the same site since 1892, well away from any urban or other non climatic biases. The Irish Met Office say this:- Since the setting up of the Irish Meteorological Service, the work programme of the Observatory has greatly expanded and it has always been equipped with the most technologically advanced equipment and instrumentation. The Observatory is well known and very highly regarded by the scientific community. As well as fulfilling its national and international role within Met Éireann it is involved in many projects with other scientific bodies both in Ireland and abroad. If we cannot get accurate temperature trends in Valentia, we cannot get them anywhere. Yet the GHCN algorithm decides that the actual temperatures measured there do not look right, and lops 0.4C off temperatures before 1967. Worse still, the algorithm uses a bunch of hopelessly unreliable urban sites, as far away as Paris, to decide upon the “correct temperature”, as Ronan Connolly illustrated. If you wanted to find a way to fraudulently alter the global temperature record upwards, you would be hard put to find a better way than this. Data sources: Raw data from GISS, up to 2011. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/ Adjusted data (GHCN V3) data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/temperature-adjustments-around-the-world/#more-12851
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 30, 2015 12:24:25 GMT
I have said for some time that each and every site used by NASA/NOAA/Hadley Centre should have its own metadata quality log. Any changes made regardless of method should be approved and signed off by the head of the group doing the changing. There are not that many sites. So take Valentia, Phil Jones should have a QA/Configuration control paragraph saying why Valentia temperatures should be changed due to temperatures in Paris. Then he should sign as having agreed that this approach is correct. This way there is accountability, it is not a case of a rogue software algorithm that 'I don't understand Excel' Jones can shrug off as an error. This is his personal responsibility and reputation he is signing for as the changes being correct. It appears at the moment that these three organizations are perpetrating a clever fraud - it will catch up with them but they will claim ignorance 'Oh my! did that algorithm do that? I don't even understand Excel so don't look at me.'
The kind of in depth research of stations was not expected by them - and it has taken a long time to happen.
The next thing is to ask them is: why they are measuring atmospheric temperature as that is not a measure of atmospheric heat content? This is part of the scam too.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 30, 2015 13:02:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 1, 2015 11:11:46 GMT
Chief IO commented on the Breibart link above. The last sentence is interesting. "Ah well, at least someone outside the blogosphere is starting to notice that it is snowing in places that are the “hottest ever” even when that past cold time did not have snow… " It raises a question. The 'official' national meteorological offices that input all their weathers into the global historic climatology network, such as BOM and New Zealand as well as the collators of the data such as NCDC and CRU, appear to be blatantly 'warming' the current data and cooling the past. Yet we see snow in Sicily the middle east and North Africa. Is the world actually colder than we think at the moment? The satellite metrics show the tropospheric temperatures and they seem to show cooling. We cannot really trust anything that we are told by these governmental and UN groups can we. Even the automatic reporting systems like Argo are adjusted at the buoy level. The people who run the GHCN and other temperature reporting systems have their thumbs on the scales as they cannot accept the idea of being proven wrong on Anthropogenic Global Warming and the subsequent loss-of-face and more importantly salaries. I think it will be necessary to start using proxies for current day temperatures as we really don't know what they are unless we can get them from an unbiased source and validate them.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 4, 2015 5:38:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 5, 2015 15:56:04 GMT
Homewood and others raise good points which clearly bring the global temperature statistics into question. But the system allows their questions to go unanswered even though these statistics are used to guide the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars.
How about this as an improvement. Since the NASA and NOAA do duplicate work in providing temperature statistics, eliminate 1 of these activities. Take a portion of that money and create a small independent audit group working for another agency or even an independent audit firm to review the global temperature statistics. One requirement is that the audit group solicit public comments on the statistics and get satisfactory answers to questions brought up by outsiders.
This saves money and should improve quality. Who's not for saving money? Who's not for improving quality? Who's not for eliminating bias or the possibility thereof at no cost?
|
|