I will preface what I am about to say with “at the foot of Mont Blanc and there is no question whatsoever that the glaciers over the last 100 years have retreated an enormous distance and in spite of the slight gain this past summer they are retreating on a grand scale”
so in the light of the fact that I completely accept something is happening, and that area’s which are likely to react more strongly to rising temperature - glaciers, sea ice etc what the F**k is this all about?
this has been reported in the telegraph today and is apparently an ongoing issue. Is it true, who’s to be believed? are peer reviewed papers coming out of the various global temp monitoring organisations beyond reproach?
I’m intrigued as to 1) if its true 2) the extent to which figures have been massaged to provide the response that guarantees the continued existence of the IPCC gravy train and 3) whether kristina kercher took out a hit on the lawyer
Data gets adjusted all the time, and for good reasons. When they “seasonally adjust” employment numbers, are they lying? When they adjust economic features for inflation, are they cheating? If environmental conditions, or updated equipment, change at a monitoring station, scientists can determine the effect of the changes on the readings and adjust the data accordingly.
I’m not saying that is what happened in these particular cases, but there is nothing nefarious about adjusting scientific data.
What about lying to support an agenda? Is that OK too as long as you call it science? Just furious where the line is so we can get a better grip on things.
It’s such a huge cover up that NOAA posts all of the data right there for everyone to compare. With published articles explaining exactly how and why they do it. And significant review by 3rd party groups.
Is it legitimate? I don’t know. It’s not my job. I think most of us in professional jobs can think of something that we do on a daily basis that would look odd to someone who was uninformed.
I will preface what I am about to say with “at the foot of Mont Blanc and there is no question whatsoever that the glaciers over the last 100 years have retreated an enormous distance and in spite of the slight gain this past summer they are retreating on a grand scale”
so in the light of the fact that I completely accept something is happening, and that area’s which are likely to react more strongly to rising temperature - glaciers, sea ice etc what the F**k is this all about?
this has been reported in the telegraph today and is apparently an ongoing issue. Is it true, who’s to be believed? are peer reviewed papers coming out of the various global temp monitoring organisations beyond reproach?
I’m intrigued as to 1) if its true 2) the extent to which figures have been massaged to provide the response that guarantees the continued existence of the IPCC gravy train and 3) whether kristina kercher took out a hit on the lawyer
Yeah, we’ll see. The ball is in NOAA’s court. They will explain what they did with the data and why.
Didn’t Global Warming start at the end of the Ice Age?
That’s funny. Yes, it did. My comment comes from a glacier I visited this summer. It was only discovered around 160 years ago so the receding of that particular glacier has only been recorded for that time. In my lame defense, I’ve got that “maybe more” at the end.
I understand adjusting something for inflation so you can say compare something to 1950.
How would adjusting temperature when you are comparing temperature, not be cooking the books?
Lets look at what you listed.
Environmental conditions change. Since what we are looking for in this case is and environmental condition, any adjustment is cooking the books.
Updated equipment. Really did we get better or worse at measuring temperature?
Weather stations get moved. Time of collection gets changed. Surrounding buildings and conditions (like pavement) change. Nothing of which has to do with climate (“environmental conditions” refers to other things than climate).
We’ve gotten better at measuring things. Included in that improvement is a better understanding of errors that may have been made in the past with techniques and equipment. Perhaps you think that we should adjust our better, more recent data to be more in error to align with previous, less accurate data?
Why don’t you do some research on how research is done? That skeptical scientist at Berkeley did, and he found that the data is really good, and to be believed.
Weather stations get moved. Time of collection gets changed. Surrounding buildings and conditions (like pavement) change. Nothing of which has to do with climate (“environmental conditions” refers to other things than climate).
I’d be interested in seeing some data that’s been massaged in a similar fashion but the results show a cooling trend. If what you say is true–and it’s certainly logical that they’d have to manipulate the data in some way to account for these types of things–then surely there are areas of the globe that have resulted in data manipulation cooling. Based on the two links in this thread, NA and SA–at least the stations included in the two pieces–both resulted in warming trends.
This reminds me of the thread on the NOAA data models, and the observed temperatures falling below 95% of the models over a number of years. This doesn’t make the models incorrect, or the science bad. But it’s another instance–models show an average of X warming over Y years; temperatures have risen in X region Y degrees–where the data just happens to skew in the direction that fits the warming narrative.
I have always believed that weather cycles occur glabally naturally. I have never believed that anything man does has any impact at all on the weather globally. Yes, heavily concentrated industrial areas have more smog and more polutants in the air and should do their best to capture runoff and chemicals from getting in the air and water.
But as with everything when the money starts flowing and environmental groups seek the power to change people’s everyday behavior it is purely for political power and money reasons.
For instance, with all the destructive things Obama has done to the country and economy does anyone really think he is shutting down the coal industry to protect people in West Virginia’s or Kentucky’s health.?? Really??
He and his administration are all about the power. They are just pandering for votes and donations from people who think common people should not have the luxuries they have and should settle for whatever “they” think the people should settle for.
I have siad it on here before and Ill say it again. Global warming caused by man is the biggest political lie ever told on the human race.
there are legitimate reasons to do these adjustments–a lot of the data are derived from geostatistical disaggregation. in other words, we have lots of data near cities, not so much in the ocean, deserts, mountains. to estimate averages you have to extrapolate to these places then take areal averages. also, cities are hotter in general, so the measurements are biased. think about it–cities are full of machines and pavement, which make the local air slightly warmer than the surrounding grassland/forest etc.
*Weather stations get moved. Time of collection gets changed. Surrounding buildings and conditions (like pavement) change. Nothing of which has to do with climate (“environmental conditions” refers to other things than climate). *
So what your saying is that the urban heat islands that the anti-gwers were claiming actually cool the area requiring increases in temperature adjustments? Or maybe they all planted tree’s and now they are in the shade? Or maybe they sold their Mercedes and got a volt so now the exhaust isn’t blowing on it? Maybe unicorns stopped peeing on them? Amazing how this occurred everywhere they needed warmer data. Who would have thunk it?
*We’ve gotten better at measuring things. Included in that improvement is a better understanding of errors that may have been made in the past with techniques and equipment. Perhaps you think that we should adjust our better, more recent data to be more in error to align with previous, less accurate data? *
Again with the better at measuring temperature. Since all us cavemen in science have been using thermocouples since the 1930’s, please enlighten us on this new better technology. Maybe the iThermometer?
Why don’t you do some research on how research is done?
Hmmmm Engineering degree’s, Yup. 20+ years working in research, Yup. This “research” is called making up data to obtain the findings you want. In industry it get’s you fired. In the global warming community is acceptable because we wouldn’t want the sheeple to see any conflicting data. They may go out and buy a gas guzzling Mercedes instead of a Leaf.
there are legitimate reasons to do these adjustments–a lot of the data are derived from geostatistical disaggregation. in other words, we have lots of data near cities, not so much in the ocean, deserts, mountains. to estimate averages you have to extrapolate to these places then take areal averages. also, cities are hotter in general, so the measurements are biased. think about it–cities are full of machines and pavement, which make the local air slightly warmer than the surrounding grassland/forest etc.
Agreed. So why did they adjust the temperature’s UP?
Hmmmm Engineering degree’s, Yup. 20+ years working in research, Yup. This “research” is called making up data to obtain the findings you want. In industry it get’s you fired. In the global warming community is acceptable because we wouldn’t want the sheeple to see any conflicting data. They may go out and buy a gas guzzling Mercedes instead of a Leaf.
You are an embarrassment to the degree you purport to hold. Not to mention the English language.
It’s strange that the same people that laugh at psychic readers for not being able to guess the lottery numbers never wonder why scientists can’t use their highly sophisticated “models” to figure out where the stock market is heading.
If they can predict the earth’s condition 50 years from now, the stock market should be child’s play as they both operate under the same conditions I.e. Historical trends, measurabel cycles, etc.
That’s really the only reason I read the Lavendar room posts, I’m just waiting for the day that BarryP converts his weather algoriths to the stock market and then we’ll all become fabulously wealthy