|
Post by acidohm on Mar 2, 2015 22:03:47 GMT
An independant school nearby has it's own weather station and has this published on it's website, i hope they don't mind me sharing it with you....obviously the data only goes to 2010...
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 2, 2015 22:19:58 GMT
An independant school nearby has it's own weather station and has this published on it's website, i hope they don't mind me sharing it with you....obviously the data only goes to 2010... View AttachmentMaybe NCDC has the data from 2100 ......
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 2, 2015 22:21:02 GMT
Well, just got off phone. NWS no longer has the actual records. They used to have them. Now..if I want to see them it is call NCDC and get them. Will I live long enough for that request to get filled? What about your friend at the university? Does he have any old data files? I don't know if he does or not. He was trying to get grants to use drones to study the 0-1,000 meter area of the atmosphere. I didn't know till he told me, that this area of the atmosphere has actually not been studied much. But that area is where most of the weather action starts. It has been modeled a lot.............I leave that to your imagination. With his involvement in Meridian now tho, hard to even get to talk to him anymore. He is still a full PhD as well, a busy man. Next time I run into him I will ask.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 2, 2015 22:22:41 GMT
An independant school nearby has it's own weather station and has this published on it's website, i hope they don't mind me sharing it with you....obviously the data only goes to 2010... View AttachmentThey must have changed the time of observation as there is no detectable warming trend in that graph acidhom. At least you are lucky....the trend isn't a hard cooling trend like the Continental USA for the past 17 years. Altho, one would never know it unless one is actually living it. Helps explain the later springs, that is for sure!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 2, 2015 23:30:33 GMT
An independant school nearby has it's own weather station and has this published on it's website, i hope they don't mind me sharing it with you....obviously the data only goes to 2010... Maybe NCDC has the data from 2100 ...... Undoubtably they do. Wouldn't want us to go guessing now .... might ruffle the kumbai yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! I've been told that last sound is something like a lemming makes on his/her descent to nirvana.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 3, 2015 0:21:21 GMT
Well, just got off phone. NWS no longer has the actual records. They used to have them. Now..if I want to see them it is call NCDC and get them. Will I live long enough for that request to get filled? If you're gonna control the message, yah gotta control the data. Well, if Frodo could get into Mordor..................?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 3, 2015 19:09:16 GMT
Sheesh guys, I only thought the temp record was interesting as being untampered with by 'those that do so' it shows a very different story to the mainstream propaganda.......
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 4, 2015 20:25:56 GMT
Ottumwa, Iowa and Iowa City, Iowa are approx. 50 miles apart. But their climate histories according to the NCDC data are amazingly different. Talk about micro-climates. I dunno what to say! Iowa City sure is warming up!
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 4, 2015 20:48:55 GMT
Where might one acquire digital files of US station data as it existed in, let's say, 1999 or 2000? Surely they haven't ALL been destroyed!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2015 21:07:22 GMT
missouriboy: I honestly don't think you can. Harold's paper record did not match the NCDC record, and they are suppose to be the "gate keeper".
I think they are the gate keeper, but only of the current version of the gate.
Pretty sad thing in reality......
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 4, 2015 21:08:20 GMT
The only reason Goodard was able to show the graphs you posted was because Hanson had a paper, where the hard copy of the temps was published. One would never be able to duplicate it today.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 4, 2015 23:33:43 GMT
missouriboy: I honestly don't think you can. Harold's paper record did not match the NCDC record, and they are suppose to be the "gate keeper". I think they are the gate keeper, but only of the current version of the gate. Pretty sad thing in reality...... Sad, yes ... but, if true ... then in my view, criminal. To take the aggregate work of five (or more) generations of human beings and desecrate it? In reality, would these guys be any better than the book burners of the Nazi party? The concept is very much the same. The elimination of any inconvenient data?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 5, 2015 2:57:32 GMT
missouriboy: I honestly don't think you can. Harold's paper record did not match the NCDC record, and they are suppose to be the "gate keeper". I think they are the gate keeper, but only of the current version of the gate. Pretty sad thing in reality...... Sad, yes ... but, if true ... then in my view, criminal. To take the aggregate work of five (or more) generations of human beings and desecrate it? In reality, would these guys be any better than the book burners of the Nazi party? The concept is very much the same. The elimination of any inconvenient data? You have to understand the mindset of really nutty pro GAWG folks. They really think they are saving mankind by changing the past to prove points. The sad thing is, folks that are old that remember, are dying. The younger folks have no clue as to the reality of the past, because they have no 1st hand information. My grandfather is gone, my dad is 90. Grandpa lived through the 30's, dad sorta remembers the 30's, later better than early. I am getting older, but was lucky to have a lot of interaction with my Grandfather. Not many do, so not many really understand what their Grand Parents told them. The only thing one can really do is rely on the actual Science to discredit the GAWG folks. By that I mean, so we reduce CO2 a bit. In reality, according to physics, what will that really do in regards to temperatures? 0.10C over 100 years? Is that worth the economic pain? The human toll? No, it isn't. Will sea levels continue to rise, as long as we stay warm? Most assuredly yes. That is what they do during interglacials. This should come as a surprise to no one. There is ample evidence that Hurricanes, one of the "former" bell weathers of the GAWG movement were actually much worse 80 years ago than today. One of the rallying cries of GAWG was that there was going to be a huge increase in Hurricanes etc. That fight got so bad between Lindzen and Emmanuel that they are no longer friends. They used to go out for supper together, etc. Their offices were only a few doors between them. They both thought they were right, turns out Lindzen was much more correct than Emmanuel. This is the fall out, the point where science is personal rather than scientific. Dr. Mann is a poster child of getting crappy papers published, and becoming a poster child of the "whiner" in Chief! Oh well..... All we can do is keep plugging away. Putting up links to actual papers, discussing the merits etc of them. Exposing fallacies as they are presented. And hope that the folks who participate in this board, along with those who just come to read this board, gain some actual knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 5, 2015 17:35:12 GMT
Sad, yes ... but, if true ... then in my view, criminal. To take the aggregate work of five (or more) generations of human beings and desecrate it? In reality, would these guys be any better than the book burners of the Nazi party? The concept is very much the same. The elimination of any inconvenient data? You have to understand the mindset of really nutty pro GAWG folks. They really think they are saving mankind by changing the past to prove points. The sad thing is, folks that are old that remember, are dying. The younger folks have no clue as to the reality of the past, because they have no 1st hand information. My grandfather is gone, my dad is 90. Grandpa lived through the 30's, dad sorta remembers the 30's, later better than early. I am getting older, but was lucky to have a lot of interaction with my Grandfather. Not many do, so not many really understand what their Grand Parents told them. The only thing one can really do is rely on the actual Science to discredit the GAWG folks. By that I mean, so we reduce CO2 a bit. In reality, according to physics, what will that really do in regards to temperatures? 0.10C over 100 years? Is that worth the economic pain? The human toll? No, it isn't. Will sea levels continue to rise, as long as we stay warm? Most assuredly yes. That is what they do during interglacials. This should come as a surprise to no one. There is ample evidence that Hurricanes, one of the "former" bell weathers of the GAWG movement were actually much worse 80 years ago than today. One of the rallying cries of GAWG was that there was going to be a huge increase in Hurricanes etc. That fight got so bad between Lindzen and Emmanuel that they are no longer friends. They used to go out for supper together, etc. Their offices were only a few doors between them. They both thought they were right, turns out Lindzen was much more correct than Emmanuel. This is the fall out, the point where science is personal rather than scientific. Dr. Mann is a poster child of getting crappy papers published, and becoming a poster child of the "whiner" in Chief! Oh well..... All we can do is keep plugging away. Putting up links to actual papers, discussing the merits etc of them. Exposing fallacies as they are presented. And hope that the folks who participate in this board, along with those who just come to read this board, gain some actual knowledge. Of course Sig... I agree ... but the concept of science, as handed down to our civilization over centuries, is the collection and documentation of observations, combined with the pondering of these observations by both scientists and pontificates. The former (no degree required) follow the observations wherever they lead, while the later (also no degree required) attempt to shape the data to a particular paradigm. In reality, these approaches are mixed in most humans. But, their interplay, often accompanied by heated exchanges fed by ego, etc., are the process by which "knowledge" supposedly advances. I use the term loosely, as it can (usually) incorporate a fair amount of less-than-substantiated opinion. There is nothing new about this. The process requires it. But the collection and documentation of observations ... this is our collective memory (as you say), and it represents a vast expenditure of time and resources over centuries. One may challenge their veracity in the light of modern instrumentation or whatever ... but NOBODY has the right to CHANGE them ... even as nobody has the right to rewrite the literature of our civilization. This cannot be a misdemeanor ... in my definitely prejudiced view ... it rises to a crime against humanity (at least our western European portion). That pooooor boy/girl just didn't know what they were doing .... they really had good intentions ... that dog don't hunt! Sorry for the diatribe ... ah dooo git carried awayyyy sumtimes!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 5, 2015 19:02:54 GMT
Of course Sig... I agree ... but the concept of science, as handed down to our civilization over centuries, is the collection and documentation of observations, combined with the pondering of these observations by both scientists and pontificates. The former (no degree required) follow the observations wherever they lead, while the later (also no degree required) attempt to shape the data to a particular paradigm. In reality, these approaches are mixed in most humans. But, their interplay, often accompanied by heated exchanges fed by ego, etc., are the process by which "knowledge" supposedly advances. I use the term loosely, as it can (usually) incorporate a fair amount of less-than-substantiated opinion. There is nothing new about this. The process requires it. But the collection and documentation of observations ... this is our collective memory (as you say), and it represents a vast expenditure of time and resources over centuries. One may challenge their veracity in the light of modern instrumentation or whatever ... but NOBODY has the right to CHANGE them ... even as nobody has the right to rewrite the literature of our civilization. This cannot be a misdemeanor ... in my definitely prejudiced view ... it rises to a crime against humanity (at least our western European portion). That pooooor boy/girl just didn't know what they were doing .... they really had good intentions ... that dog don't hunt! Sorry for the diatribe ... ah dooo git carried awayyyy sumtimes! While being mostly in agreement I think its fair for the other side to note that the historical data collection was set up for an entirely different purpose than what it is currently being put to. Anthony Watts has gone on about this for years and put a huge internet volunteer group together to examine some of the problems surrounding what the data is currently being used for. Adjusting the data is not wrong in this regard of ensuring consistency among weather stations. The data was collected originally with no regard to the use of "averaging" between weather stations but entirely for the sake of consistency in reporting from a specific weather station. Where I think the problem is in is in managing the task so that each weather station is treated the same in a manner specifically designed to accurately represent the objective. Instead, like all academic and piecemeal work its done inconsistently and nobody knows if what is being done is for an identical objective. Further due to the nature of funding for this work its more than likely what is being adjusted is biased going out the door. We have graphically seen how the main guy in all this Dr. Phil (the dog ate my raw data) Jones worked to essentially deceive the IPCC process as to the strength of information about historical warming. No question he did the same sort of questionable manipulation with the historical data sets that in whole or in part underlie every global surface record in the world. thats true because only Phil Jones and his group are the only people to compile datasets of considerable portions of the globe over considerable periods of time, up until sometime in the past 30 or 40 years, a fact that has huge ramifications as to how much warming we have really experienced since say the late 1930's and early 1940's. There is no question of the likelihood of in inappropriate adjustments because he has defended the "Hide the Decline" trick as a perfectly reasonable and normal thing to do. Of course he got demoted over it, as all the agencies scrambled to deny any significance of it, but heck we probably should not pay any attention to that! So my bottom line is yes some adjustments are warranted, but the original datasets should be archived and all methodologies and computer processing documented and archived as well. And at some point somebody should audit not just the recomplilation of the adjusted data as was done in the Best reconstruction but go back and actually audit (in the professional sense of the term) all the adjustment processes for consistency and a lack of bias and the reconstruction. However that might not be possible considering the likelihood all the raw data and adjustment methodologies are not properly archived.
|
|