"Is earth cooking? Or is it the data?" Topic

A major inquiry has been launched into the reliability of official global surface temperature records following widespread allegations that data has been manipulated to prove that global warming is happening.

According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from which the US government draws official statistics, 2014 was the hottest year globally since records began in 1880. However, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), both of which rely on satellite systems to gauge global temperatures, show no such warming.

NOAA gathers its data from a network of more than 3,000 weather stations known as the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).However, in the light of the different pictures being painted by the satellites and weather stations, analysts have examined the data and point to hundreds of examples of data from the weather stations being "adjusted", potentially exaggerating global warming…

be interesting to see the results…

link

I've always had trouble with the pov that the scientific "community" is globally "in on this" as some kind of conspiracy. What I think has been happening is the group mentality that makes most scientists prone to put their faith in gov't overseers. And in fact the problem of gov't funding is a big problem. Human beings will be motivated to obtain and protect their "rice bowl" above all other things. That makes scientists vulnerable to pressure. Humans with self interest also lie to themselves with alacrity. They don't even allow that they are doing it, with few exceptions.

So what is happening is a building pressure to support gov't power grabs through sensing that the wanted outcome is toward increased gov't control. The science is malleable enough to do this. Otherwise the only other explanation of "adjusted" data is malice aforethought. That won't fly. Nobody years ago saw this day coming, when their data would be scrutinized for evidence of adjustment. The data wouldn't have even been public property. Now it will be….

Never claimed there was a global conspiracy. There has been evidence of a few key folks working together to massage data and "guide" discussions and opinions to match the desired groupthink.

There was one IPCC conference where one of the primary experts on polar bears who had expressed a position not in compliance with the official position was disinvited from the meeting by the head of the IPCC because his position was "not helpful."

Getting science information from Breitbart is like getting advice on running a Linux server from Microsoft though.

Besides, wouldn't this be easy to verify? Look up old news papers and their weather pages.

Chris Brooker is still flogging this dead horse after it has been repeatedly shown by qualified experts in the field that at best his work shows that he's incompetent and/or at worst he's willfully ignorant.

Here's Dr, Cowtan taking apart Brooker's tired and repetitive argument from 2 and 3 months ago.

YouTube link

YouTube link

And the link to the tool to analyses the adjustments to each station as mentioned in the videos (It may take a few seconds to load data): link

I am a huge fan of Mark Steyn, by the way.

Well, considering ocean levels are rising (just check the Everglades) and the icepacks are smaller (overall and adjusted for season) I'd say the earth is getting warmer. Or the temp to melt ice has gotten lower (right….)

I am a huge fan of Mark Steyn, by the way.

How is outing oneself as a fan of a proud climate ignoramus relevant to and/or advancing this discussion in any meaningful way?

As we've established repeatedly, a site reporting on a fact does not make the fact go away just because you dislike the source.

You claiming this event ISN'T taking place? Based on what?

As we've established repeatedly, a site reporting on a fact does not make the fact go away just because you dislike the source.

You claiming this event ISN'T taking place? Based on what?

@coastal 2, the challenge is to quantify the amount of that which is reflective of man.

You claiming this event ISN'T taking place? Based on what?

Look at the two YouTube Videos. Dr. Kevin Cowtan does a much better job than I care to do for this forum.

Search hard enough and I guess you can find something on the internet to support whatever you want to believe…..

Martin, I'll give it a look.

JJ

Besides, wouldn't this be easy to verify? Look up old news papers and their weather pages.

Yep. And this group isn't (apparently) going in with a bias, if you believe them:(bolding is mine)

The inquiry is being chaired by Professor Terence Kealey, former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. Launching the inquiry, Professor Kealey said: "Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested. We hope to perform a valuable public service by getting everything out into the open."

He also issued a call for evidence, saying "We hope that people who are concerned with the integrity of climate science, from all sides of the debate, will help us to get to the bottom of these questions by telling us what they know about the temperature records and the adjustments made to them. The team approaches the subject as open-minded scientists – we intend to let the science do the talking. Our goal is to help the public understand the challenges in assembling climate data sets, the influence of adjustments and modifications to the data, and whether they are justifiable or not."

The Foundation has promised to publish all submissions.

and there is clearly a difference in the data:

Indeed, the difference between the pictures emerging from satellite data and from the weather stations is not insignificant. While NOAA is busy proclaiming the hottest years on record, the University of Alabama says there has been no warming for over 18 years.

Asked to comment on the temperature plateau by CNS News, Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville said "That's basically a fact. There's not much to comment on."

Nope it is the data that is being cooked.

Look at the two YouTube Videos. Dr. Kevin Cowtan does a much better job than I care to do for this forum.

Lost to the Fez memory hole, I examined the sites Cowtan uses and he's cherry picking his data from the broader data set.

I don't believe it is a case of any sort of conspiracy. It really is more sailing into the dangerous waters of "group think." The adjustments are either in the right direction or the wrong direction. Only time will tell which is correct.

So why are the Arctic and Antarctic melting? Along with almost every other glacier on earth?

I'd say the earth is getting warmer

Right now, yes. The Earth as gotten cooler and warmer in the past when man wasn't even around.

We seem to be having global warming (for now) but there isn't enough evidence of man's cause to lead me to think that drastic downgrades in our lifestyle are necessary to "save the planet"

You don't need numbers to show that the earth is warming just look at the reduced ice in the Artic disappearing glaciers and southern animals and plants being able to survive further north.

Earth goes through cycles of warm and cold temperatures Historical and archaeological evidence shows that places like Greenland were once a lot warmer and supported settlements that grew their own food As temperatures cooled their ability to survive was reduced and the settlements disappeared. We are returning to that type of climate.How long it will take and what causes it may be debatable but it is happening as history shows

Terrement are you so ashamed of getting your talking points form that hack Tony Watts from WhiskeyTangoFoxtrotUniformWiskeyTango that you're not going to cite it?

Some of the inane questions asked by the Global Warming Denial and Doubt Creation Policy Foundation:

Q 1. Are there aspects of surface temperature measurement procedures that potentially impair data quality or introduce bias and need to be critically re-examined?

Without putting in undue effort:

Poor quality control on time of observation,
Moving the Station or changing equipment without markinging it down in the record,
Thy guy doing the observation was blottoed on cheep moonshine ;-)
Change in the surrounding area around the weather station.
The blottoed guy making a typo when recording the observation
The blottoed guy writes in hieroglyphic
Records may be lost or misplaced in the distant past before keeping a strict log of observation was as important as it is today.

Q 2. How widespread is the practice of adjusting original temperature records? What fraction of modern temperature data, as presented by HadCRUT/GISS/NOAA/BEST, are actual original measurements, and what fraction are subject to adjustments?

As widespread as arithmetic since you're calculating a spatial average. Seriously, this is the type of question that shows that these guys are more interested in muddying the water than clarity. Nick Stokes has a great take on this in his blog. link

As for conspiring, these guys are auful since they are leaving their methodology where anybody can find it:

NASA GISS: link
HADCRUT: link
Berkley Earth:

Other groups such as NASA, NOAA, and the Hadley Center either work with data that has been homogenized or they make homogenizing adjustments to the data series. In the Berkeley method station records are not adjusted up or down. Rather, stations that display unreliable data characteristics are down weighted in the construction of spatial temperature fields. Stations that show evidence of undocumented moves or instrument change (e.g. evidenced by extremely abrupt changes, either up or down) are split at the change point and treated as two separate records.

And what's the point, since the homoginization actually lowers the trend line of warming. From Dr. Victor Venema's blog
link

Terrement are you so ashamed of getting your talking points form that hack Tony Watts from WhiskeyTangoFoxtrotUniformWiskeyTango that you're not going to cite it?

Not where I got it. Sorry. The fact that others pick it up and run with it is not my fault. Seems that sources on the left does that as well.

link

Might want to know what you are talking about before slinging mud.

You'll also note by a random examination of my posts, my forgetting to include a link is not common – just in a rush this morning.

As for the temperature study, if there are no discrepancies between the two systems then there should be no problem, should there?

As for methodology, the folks in question are looking at the differences between the measurements from satellites vs the temps taken at ground level. Which is more accurate and why? Does one provide better coverage? More data points? Greater precision? Greater accuracy? I don't know and don't claim to. But I think it is a fair question. If there's no "there" there, then no problem. If there is a legitimate set of data to challenge that which is used to feed the IPCC models that do not work, and when there are non-IPCC explanations using real data that does work, I think it bears looking into. Or are you claiming that these two organizations don't know that of which they speak?

However, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), both of which rely on satellite systems to gauge global temperatures, show no such warming.

But since NASA is shouting about the hottest year last year based on a rise that is likely well within the range of "noise" on the readings, it seems there is a bunch of intellectual dishonesty going on – just like with the claim regarding the climate footprint of the South American conference.

Or do you think that nonsense is legitimate?

Let's see…one source shows no trend, the earth shows no trend for nearly two decades, and one other source shows a trend. Hmmmm, I wonder who I should believe? The one that actually reflects reality or the one that doesn't? Tough one, that.

10. REDUCING THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF IPCC ACTIVITIES
Document: IPCC-XXXVII/Doc. 10
The Secretary of the IPCC introduced this matter and the work that is already under way to reduce the carbon footprint of IPCC activities, including the successful use of electronic documents at recent meetings. Delegates thanked the Secretariat for the efforts and work gone into this topic. The use of electronic meetings or electronic connections to in-person meetings, when possible, was encouraged. Some delegates welcomed the fact that options in this regard were being looked into. However, it was also noted that holding IPCC meetings around the world is important. When travel is necessary, carbon offsetting can have a useful role to play, provided that a reputable scheme is identified for this purpose, possibly in consultation with partner UN agencies. The Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, through the voluntary cancellation in the CDM registry, was mentioned as an example of an already existing reputable scheme, not only for offsetting travel emissions but also for other carbon footprint reductions.
Other suggestions were put forward from delegates and it was decided that the work on this issue should go on. It was agreed that the Secretariat would continue studying and mapping out the options and alternative models to reduce the carbon footprint of IPCC activities, taking into account the viewpoints expressed by Panel members, and that the Panel would eventually decide how to move forward on this subject when there is more clarity on the next steps.

PDF link

Given how long these folks have been adding a significant carbon footprint with their around the world meetings, someone might have expected that, after all of these years, it would be more than something "they'll look into and decide…EVENTUALLY"

Must not be that important, eh? What a load of crap! "More clarity?" What could be more clear? They are haranguing the world about carbon use and carbon footprints, but they can't figure out that despite the niceties of (all the luxury hotels and such) meeting face to face, it would be leadership by example to do otherwise? Shows how serious they REALLY are, and certainly casts into question the "moral high ground" they want to claim for themselves in dictating to the world how to live. Just doesn't apply to them. Or Gore. Or Redford. Or Cameron. Or diCaprio. Or any others of the masses of hypocrites that blather on and on from their private jets about the seriousness of the problem.

BTW, do you think you could make your graph even bigger? It might seem more true if it was, and had a few more colors added. In case you missed it, the issue ISN'T whether smoothed data and readings that correspond are close. The issue is whether the satellite readings or the surface readings are the better source. I guess you missed that again.

Yes, nothing is happening. The oceanographers that work at the local university are all liars when they talk about the raise in temperature of the Atlantic around us, and those fishermen who notice it too? Well they just don't have a masters in Mathematics.

I lied obviously some years ago when I spoke about arctic ice thinning when some tool here (not JJ, I hesitate to add) was going on about it thickening. I lied about the extraordinary numbers of icebergs we were seeing where I live and I lied about meetings with respect to changing construction codes in areas of my province where perma-frost was no longer perma.

Martin, it's best just to ignore it. It's absolutely all political in the same way that TMP is very skewed towards a political party in another country. Combine that with the fact that a political figure in that country made a movie about it along with many folks with a PhD (Google) in science that are routinely displayed here, it's a useless cause. It's like trying to convince voodoo practitioners that voodoo doesn't work.

I like JJ a lot, BTW, I just can't stand dealing with this political obsession. And it is political (not in the sense of breaking TMP rules, though), there is absolutely no denying it.

PS, I was a project manager in literally billions of dollars worth of all kinds of military technology, including a number of projects that were joint funded with the US organization TACOM doesn't mean I was an expert on them. I know the basics of shaped charges, a certain program for computer modelling and so on, but I could have had a degree in arts or mathematics and still have been a project manager.
--
Tim

I will say this. Group think works on any idea. ANY idea. So just because the nay sayers come up with an idea that debunks the climate changers does not make the nay sayers automatically right. Nobody seems to be cherry picking their scientific methodology either.

Here is why we should do something about climate change from a logical perspective. YouTube link

Tim, it's funny that the blinder's don't kick in when the same research is militarized. A fair amount of the the research on precise atmospheric IR wavelength absorption data is was from the AIM-9 Sidewinder program.

In other words, if you accept that the guidance mechanism of the AIM-9 Sidewinder and the AA-2 Atoll work according to the principles of physics, then you have to accept those same principles for the earth insulating properties of CO2. Conversely, if you're denying CO2's IR properties, you logically have to accept that AIM-9 and AA-2s are guided by voodoo and not the ones built by McDonnell ;-)

Not automatically right at all. And yes I have a major axe to grind with folks who love to preach to others but do not hold themselves to the same standards. Like the IPCC. Like the celebs. Like the politicians. Like the head of the IPCC who disinvites experts whose positions are "not helpful" and with scientific work that has to be modified to match the political write-up. If that makes my positions political they are no more so than the political positions of the other side.

If folks don't want to lock horns because they believe I can't be convinced, that is their loss. I've openly admitted when evidence is provided that shows I've misstated something or that there is unbiased compelling evidence contrary to my position. The fact that climate science is filled with questions, missing original data , pressure brought against scientists who differ , hypocricy at many levels at the same time there are other valid scientific explanations I think is a valid case for doubt.

If there are reports from among the IP C scientists trying to explain the lack of warming, I don't think it is a big stretch to claim there is a lack of warming. If a university study demonstrates that the lack of warming is consistent with natural variations, I do not find it hard to accept that natural variations are the reason for what we have seen. Which is not what the IPCC models predict.

I find it totally reasonable to accept that there are bigger more immediate problems which today could and should be addressed like clean drinking water. Any idea how many die each year Right now from dysentery and related disease? That's one of Loburg's group's priority as it is mine. I've provided links to their site. What of their priorities do you disagree?

Anyone want to speak specifically on behalf of the IPCC hypocrisy and South American carbon footprint explanation?

Eventually decide? Like they can't just stop now?

I find it totally reasonable to accept that there are bigger more immediate problems which today could and should be addressed like clean drinking water.

There are many groups working to address this problem today, including UNICEF, WaterAid International, the World Bank, the EPA, WHO, the UN Economic Commission for Africa, CARE, Drop in the Bucket, the Blue Planet Network, the Alternative World Water Forum, the Clear Water Initiative, DIGDEEP, Global Water, Generosity Water, Healing Waters Internaional, H2O for Life, Just a Drop, Life Waters International, OK Clean Water Project, the Water Trust, Pump Aid, Thirst Relief International, Sanitation and Water for All, the Voss Foundation, Water for People, Water is Life, EauVive, Water is Basic, and literally dozens if not hundreds of others.

Or are you saying that all work on climate change should be halted immediately, and those funds and research should be diverted into addressing the need for clean water and sanitation around the world until that problem no longer exists?

Here is why we should do something about climate change from a logical perspective. YouTube link

Yes. I watched that years ago. The worst that can happen is to acquiesce to gov't takeover of resources worldwide, "for our own good", because masses of people are too stupid to take care of ourselves, etc. and etc. and etc.

I'm all for alternate energy development and deployment, as quickly as feasible (not *possible*, because that includes draconian measures against the people "for their own good".)

Likewise I am for conservation and recycling, even if it costs more but results in a cleaner world. It will take a lot of hard work, and expense, to make it cleaner. So economy is far down the list of priorities when we are talking about "what is it for?" The expense should result in improvement and we should all be willing and eager to make a difference by living cleanly and conservatively.

But turn all of this over to gov't agencies/bureaucracies and the result will be onerous regulation and loss of freedoms….

There are many groups working to address this problem today

And how are they doing? Seems like the problem is still there, no? How many of them could be consolidated/eliminated/work more effectively and efficiently?

Or are you saying that all work on climate change should be halted immediately, and those funds and research should be diverted into addressing the need for clean water and sanitation around the world until that problem no longer exists?

Did you read the Lonborg links to which I referred?

@Great War Ace

I'm with you. For a look at the government "solving" the green energy problem, take a look at just how well that worked out in Spain.

I'm opposed to any group that wants to tell me how I have to live when they don't do it themselves, and when their "solution" is impossible given the participants in the world and the current state of economies, already pretty fragile in many places. Do I want air like China? Nope. But the idea that we (the world) can convert over and away from petrol when alternate energy is not yet available is sheer folly.

To continually insist the science is settled and no more work needs to be done other than look at second and third order effects when their own models do not predict reality when fed past data makes it pretty clear their models do not work – unlike Duke's. To trash economies based of 100 year projections based on predictions from models that do not work?

Spare me.

Meanwhile, how about some defenders of hypocrisy? If they can't even be honest about what they do, how can you trust them to be honest with anything else?

link

How ironic. Not confidence-building either, since I am sure that another venue could have been "found" to house the conference without having to build a thing….

It is one of the reasons why their hypocrisy is such a burr under my saddle.

If they believe what they said, they are idiots.

If they don't believe it they are liars.

Either way these are the folks that want to dictate how the world will live.

Christopher Booker, like virtually all climate change deniers, has zero scientific credibility.

Trust me, it's the earth, not the data.

Bangorstu –

Christopher Booker, like virtually all climate change deniers, has zero scientific credibility.

How much credibility should be given to the liars or fools of the IPCC cited above and the hypocrites from the same organization who need more clarity before they can figure out that the carbon footprints of their meetings is not only totally avoidable but something that they should do? They don't believe their own data? How absurd!

U.N. Panel Issues Its Starkest Warning Yet on Global Warming

link

HOW long have the meetings been taking place? And they still can't decide whether to cut back on their travels? They really think that the trees they used to offset their unnecessary and bigger than ever carbon footprint was somehow not in use and not doing anything already? Really? And you believe them?

How about Duke University? University of Alabama? You questioning them as well? Just because Booker comments on them doesn't invalidate their studies.

Reuters? Are they deniers because they repoert on what the climate scientists are doing?
link

LA Times?

link

Booker may well lack credibility, but the IPCC has made a pretty good case that they too lack credibility. Hypocrites!

Nice straw man arguments, there. Doesn't change a thing. And this is the standard climate deniers argument: Attack the messengers, because they can't refute the science. If that makes you happy, fine. There is whole of sand you can bury your head in.

I'm done with this useless discussion…

It seems you do not understand what a straw man argument even is.
link
Explains it rather nicely, and I'd love to see you explain how my directly quoting people or providing reports of what people have done fits that explanation.

Nothing straw about hypocrisy. Nothing straw about IPCC scientists unable to explain lack of warming. Nothing straw about Duke University's study, nor Alabama.

And why shouldn't lying hypocrites be attacked?

By the way, if you bothered to actually read the Duke report, with which I agree, you'll see there is no denial there…just a better explanation than IPCC's failure.

And it seems YOU are attacking the messenger because you can't defend the indefensible. You like the pejorative term "denier" which you seem to be trying to defame me. Please provide any post of mine where I have denied climate change.

There is a big difference between taking issues with crap models that make crap predictions which are the basis for crap remedies, and denying climate change. So I look forward to your evidence on that in addition to your explanation of how my posts constitute straw man arguments.

I'm pretty sure we won't hear back from you as you can't do either.

Whatever……

Unless you have used the same instrument, in the same place, in the same day, with the same weather, all the time, over a large course of years the data will be broken.

and once the data is said to have been "adjusted" you can just drop it in the trash can.

Whatever……

And there you have the thoughtful and comprehensive reply from someone who could not refute the truth and resorted to attacking the messenger.

What a well stated and compelling argument in defense of his allegations and assertions.

Do you object to environmental regulations in general or is it climate change specifically that you are opposed to regulations regarding?

Have you not read any of what I've posted or are you just trying to be a troll?