|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 6, 2015 12:50:45 GMT
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? The people that currently control the story will not want anyone digging away at the 'real science' by lifting the curtain. It won't happen. Control over the data and its presentation will remain completely in the hands of those whose careers depend on the values being just as requested. A huge and diverse industry has grown up any change in what the numbers say will be distinctly unwelcome. Expect yet more adjustments and pressure for the satellites to be decommissioned.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 8, 2015 7:12:29 GMT
Paul Homewood divulges how temperature adjustments have transformed Arctic climate history: Here's the GISS creative proof that “climate change” is the rapidly warming Arctic (called the World’s thermometer), proof that global warming cannot have stopped: Yet it is well established that the Arctic warmed up rapidly during the 1930’s and 40’s, before temperatures plunged in the 1960’s and 70’s. James Hansen, himself, recognised this, as the graph below from his 1987 paper Global Trends of Measured Surface Air Temperature , showed: So how much is what we have been seeing in recent years just part of that cycle? How much warmer is the Arctic now than it was 80 years ago? Quite a lot, according to GISS: However, “cooling the past” adjustments have been carried out in the Arctic region, and that the scale and geographic range of these is breathtaking. Nearly every current station from Greenland, in the west, to the heart of Siberia (87E), in the east, has been altered in this way. The effect has been to remove a large part of the 1940’s spike, and as consequence removed much of the drop in temperatures during the subsequent cold decades. See entire article here (with data links): notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/temperature-adjustments-transform-arctic-climate-history/#more-13039
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 8, 2015 7:32:08 GMT
Well documented.
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Feb 8, 2015 10:45:00 GMT
From the Daily Telegraph Sunday 8th Feb, Charles Booker
"The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
The “vanishing” of polar ice (and the polar bears) has become a poster-child for warmists.
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming. This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record. Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”. Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy. Related Articles President Barack Obama will use the report as evidence for action as he tries to move ahead with policies on climate change before leaving office in 2017 Barack Obama's personal battle against climate change 23 Jan 2015 Rise in sea levels is 'faster than we thought' 14 Jan 2015 One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years. Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all. Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 8, 2015 15:07:08 GMT
If one can't explain why the temp rise of the early 20th century occurred, one just makes it go away.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 8, 2015 16:04:06 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/07/the-met-office-uk-our-heros/The above is interesting and actually productive in regards to stats. Haven't paid a lot of attention to past "temp reconstructions", as the past is the past and I already know from memory what the past was like. Anyone have any knowledge of how much "reconstruction" Had4 has done? We know GISS is about as useless as tits on a boar, in regards to previous temperature values.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 9, 2015 1:22:57 GMT
wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/07/the-met-office-uk-our-heros/The above is interesting and actually productive in regards to stats. Haven't paid a lot of attention to past "temp reconstructions", as the past is the past and I already know from memory what the past was like. Anyone have any knowledge of how much "reconstruction" Had4 has done? We know GISS is about as useless as tits on a boar, in regards to previous temperature values. I have complained for some time about Hadcrut4. Not that its a bad method of analyzing current average global temperature but that it is almost worthless as a means for comparing current temperatures to decade old and longer ago average global temperatures. Why is that? Well for a number of reasons 1) it is designed by Phil Jones of "hide the decline" fame. Nothing that man does is trustworthy! 2) the purpose of Hadcrut 4 was to jump in and take maximum advantage to recent observations that the Arctic was warming faster than the rest of the world. Its just another in a long line of what appears adjustments selected because of the results they would obtain. And of course you could also cherry pick temperature records in the Antarctic to get something out of that using nice references to heavily criticized extrapolations of warming in West Anatartica to places in the interior that have no temperature stations. This makes Hadcrut 4 almost worthless for longterm temperature trend analysis because nearly ALL THE POLAR TEMPERTURES were reconstructed with the help of CLIMATE MODELS. The very same climate models that can't punch their way out of a paper bag for their predictions for the past 2 decades. Hadcrut 3 had been fudged too with selective choices on raw data, the raw data that Phil Jones' dog ate thereby preventing any meaningful replication of the work that resulted in Hadcrut 3. I read that Hadcrut 3 temperatures had for the most part been moved into Hadcrut 4 (no other choice there as the raw data was lost by Phil Jones a few weeks after he said he would rather burn it than turn it over to the skeptics). Now I have no doubt that looking at individual adjustments each has a some degree of logic to it. There always is a range of reasonable assumptions that surround each and every weather station. There are I am rather sure good arguments for every method of gridding and extrapolation used by the Hadcrut4 team. Also temperature record gridders around the world communicate often with each other (well documented in the climategate emails) so on top of the same data the various surface records make the same adjustments as well. Hadcrut 4 is not the basis of NOAA or GISS temperature records but the missing Phil Jones raw data was a big part (world weather other than US weather) for the NOAA and GISS data sets so since the US is a very small portion of the globe one can say that Phil Jones lost raw data is the most important historical data in all the surface record datasets. Now when we had the "Best" reconstructions its important to note that these reconstructions were little more than math and logic checks. They used the "popular" means of extrapolations and gridding shared widely in the "select" science community without audit or replication of empirical study to verify their validity. And of course sample selection of the historical data for Hadcrut 4 is not even possible. I can't call foul on Phil Jones but if he intentionally lost the data it would seem to be treason, especially considering his own views on the importance of the findings of the data. I don't know if existing laws would cover that, but there should be such laws regarding such important public records. Liberals should jump all over that since they seem to think the only enemy left in the world are people they think responsible for global warming. The same can be said of all these "one way" adjustments that net to more desirable reporting of the funded interests behind CAGW. That is like a thousand red flags flying to an auditor when substantial adjustments have been made. But we are talking about a lot of work verifying each adjustment and "agencies" are really bad and leaving around anything to do that with. They are that way because such stuff leads to political problems even when small discrepancies are found so better to keep the blinders on the public. After farming most of the work out to academics the result is you even lose the higher degree of objectivity typically found in the low level government scientist who has no other fish to fry than continue to march to an almost predetermined retirement. Raw data records should always be maintained carefully and be made publicly available. They are a great way for highlighting exactly what should be retested or replicated. I have experience in these kinds of projects. Doing them both as part of major due diligence projects and major litigation support involving huge amounts of raw information, and computer models designed to assess them. I find it almost hysterically funny that anybody gives much belief in any of this stuff seeking such small variations in temperature and trying to decipher the future from them when so many problems exist. If anything at all has any reliability its the satellite records. They are factors of magnitude less complicated and factors of magnitude much closer to a representative sampling of global temperature. The satellite records are showing a paltry .42 degree warming over the past 30 years. This is no different than the warming of the early 20th century even under the adjusted surface temperature records Add on to that the fact that CAGW basic greenhouse theory theorizes that the area of the atmosphere tested by satellites will warm about 20% faster than the surface, the actual surface adjusted warming should probably be reduced to about .34C over the last 30 years (though I have not verified if that adjustment is not already being made) So actual warming is going half speed CAGW theory and now its being admitted by many CAGW scientists that half of that may be due to natural variation, potentially taking man made contributions down to somewhere between .17C and .21C over the past 30 years that works out to about 1/5th to 1/4th of the warming actually being attributed to mankind from satellite models. On a per century basis that means maybe somewhere between .56 and .7C per century warming being potentially attributed to humans. And this is basically what a lot of warmists have already conceded is fairly likely, of course without actually pushing a number contrary to the political message but more as an explanation for the pause. These people still think warming will be next. I am with Astromet that what comes next is cooling. I don't have high confidence of that but I figure its a better shot than warming coming next. The upcoming probable deep minimum with perhaps a 1,000 or more spotless days, not seen for more than century gives me fairly good confidence of that. At any rate we are seeing more and more support for lower levels of climate sensitivity judithcurry.com/2015/02/06/on-determination-of-tropical-feedbacks/#more-17755So back to Hadcrut 4 with its model estimated polar trends. Hmmmm, one might actually expect since its pretty easy to assume from Captain Larsen's passages of the NW passage in 1944 there are in fact huge ocean oscillations that affect the Arctic strongly, something none of the climate models used by Phil Jones recognizes. The only thing to recommend Hadcrut 4 over Hadcrut 3 is it shows more more warming occuring, but I sure would not bet your farm on it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 9, 2015 21:01:43 GMT
Most of the adjustments in recent years to the "average" global temperature record have probably risen from switching from Hadcrut 3 to Hadcrut4. Hadcrut 3 was not a global temperature record as it only covered 80degN to 80degS. Warmists in the usual fashion noticed that the Arctic had been warming faster than the rest of the globe and some rather criticized science even suggested the same for Antarctica. If the arctic were cooling or warming slower, Hadcrut4 would have never happened. . . .this bias alone may be the biggest problem we face in science. Enter Phil "Hide The Decline" Jones, the master of "science tricks" to maximize opportunities for indoctrination of people into believing in not the certainty of warming but believing in the certainty of warming stretched to its maximum by piecing together the most aggressive science information into a long term record (in hide the decline he used tree ring proxies for historical temperatures and erased recent tree ring data that showed cooling and replaced it with a temperature record) In fact he used his own temperature record for the recent warming in place of the portion of tree ring data he erased. The one he was caught in the climategate emails saying he would rather destroy the raw data that underpinned that record to scientists likely to be critical of it. This is the crux of the matter, no question. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Hadcrut 4 warming that has shifted temperature record results in nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Now lets be clear here. I don't think its fraud. However, in my profession you can get your license suspended and you can be successfully sued for a whole lot less than what amounts to fraud. Its instead a form of malpractice for which no legal penalties exist in climate science. Jones does not like giving his raw data to skeptics because skeptics (esp. Steve McIntyre) have been very successful in clearly and coherently laying out why its malpractice. McIntyre is uniquely trained to do this from his work in mining (salting mines, etc) for which penalties do exist. But since no penalties exist, the malpractice is uncovered, technical people can understand it, the NAS agrees with McIntyre on the key point but does nothing other than suggest to Michael Mann that maybe he shouldn't rely so much on a single damaged pine tree in California for his global temperature record. (not a whole lot different than suggesting crystal balls probably should not be used either) Fact is in this world of politically-driven single funder science we have a bunch of witch doctors hunting around for images of the Mother of Jesus in anything they can find. They write a study on it using questionable statistics (statistics is always questionable and the more complex it gets the more its questionable and the less it reflects reality.) They know if they find anything that the green lobby will then ensure government will shower more money on them to produce more of the same. So malpractice is not just legal its REWARDED. Heck replacing an undesirable stretch of data in a proxy you are using and replacing it with another data record in and of itself is clearly malpractice and no scientist argues for it. Michael Mann has done it but will never talk about it. You bring it up on Real Climate and your post will instantly find itself in the borehole. It was so bad Phil Jones had to step down as head of the UEA climate unit, but he gets a fat grant to develop Hadcrut4. The worst nightmare of these malpracticing scientists is feeding any controversy so key data is withheld for a thousand excuses. The only enforcement for releasing key data are the privately owned science journals and these are in good part owned by the same people that fund the green lobby or are vehicles of science groups whose scientists are benefiting from the green lobby. Violations are hardly ever acted upon and its not a problem for science in dispute because these journals simply don't publish that stuff in the first place and when it does get published almost always the data is made available. . . .a necessity when bucking the conventional wisdom. These problems are not in any way limited to climate science. Its pervasive surrounding all major green issues. I consider myself green and have worked on a lot of green projects. But I want to see green that helps people and the only way for that to ever come to fruition is for science to be well founded, well respected, and honestly funded. Green Corporations have become a huge and corrupt industry in its own right in search of problems and dogs to kick as opposed to actually rationally working on identified problems. Recommended reading on this: journeytoforever.org/bflpics/EnvironmentInc.pdfThis is a 5 part series published in the Sacramento Bee back in 2001. Tom Knudson is a long time Pulitzer Prize-winning environmental reporter for the Sacramento Bee.
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Feb 11, 2015 5:57:15 GMT
NY decline in temps has been adjusted away: New York January temperatures had been massively tampered with to cool the past by three degrees, and eliminate the cooling trend. Perhaps they had good reason for this, and it needed to be homogenized with a nearby station to bring it in line? Let’s look at the next station over at Elmira, N.Y. Guess what, exactly the same data tampering – they knocked three degrees off the past temperatures and made the cooling trend disappear. Perhaps the adjusters believe there was a massive conspiracy of global warming deniers in 1895 tampering with the temperature record? Link: stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/actually-the-temperature-adjustments-are-extremely-fraudulent/
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 11, 2015 16:52:48 GMT
There is no need for fraud. There are enough variables and inconsistencies within the weather station networks for an imaginative scientist to come up with several reasons a temperature station is not performing to expectations. A well published story of mass adjustments of station reads is the story of the Argo buoy measurements. The results were inconsistent with expectations and the scientist after releasing a study on them created such a furor he dreamt up a plausible reason why and got his study to not quite fit the expectations but at least to quiet the furor. Adjusting a read out you think is wrong on the basis of a plausible error cause is not fraud. It might well be a case of too much responsibility being vested in an incompetent or weak-willed scientist though.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 17, 2015 15:06:53 GMT
NOAA recently reported the global average temperature for 2014 was 58.24 F (1.24 degrees above the average of the 20th century of 57.0) beating the previous record by 0.07 F. NOAA 2014 Global AnalysisBut, in 1998 NOAA reported the global average temperature for 1997 was a record 62.45 F. NOAA 1998 Global AnalysisThey adjusted the 1998 temperature downward by more than 4 degrees, so they can say 2014 was clearly a new record by 0.07 degrees. (From the Sunshine Hours website)
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Feb 17, 2015 23:05:43 GMT
No wonder I'm confused.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 17, 2015 23:58:03 GMT
Don't slide over to the dark side thar Ratty! Keep your head up and your feet down..... (I know it is hard to do down under....but ya know?)
|
|
|
Post by greyviper on Feb 18, 2015 0:34:43 GMT
This is a great idea. Indeed, it would be advantageous if we are a little bit more efficient and practice some sort of economies of scale or whatever in implementing such tasks. The bias thing needs to be addressed of course if it does exist.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Feb 21, 2015 15:12:53 GMT
There are talks of coming congressional investigations into global temperature measurement manipulation. Link
|
|