×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records
41

Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

4
(OP)
There is a 53 minute presentation at Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records from Steve Goddard (who starts by describing his qualifications which seem to be rock solid) that shows many high quality examples of how dramatically the climate data has been modified. One interesting observation is that approximately 50% of U.S. weather stations have been taken out of service in the last 30 years (primarily rural) and the data is "estimated" based on the remaining stations which are primarily urban (and most have been "corrected" for heat island effects). His data shows clearly exactly how the climate data has been manipulated (always in the same direction). It is worth 53 minutes to see if your credibility button gets pushed.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

That's a pretty powerful indictment of NASA scientists for manipulating climate data. Thanks for sharing it, Dave.

I wish this message could be made more concise and presented by someone who could get people more excited about it.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Someone else is also playing sleight of hand here.

Heller claims that the Arctic is "full" of ice, by showing a satellite image, neglecting to mention that ice is 3 dimensional. The fact that the Arctic summer ice is at its lowest now, compared to 50 years ago says that his "full" of ice image has much thinner ice, which Heller helpfully ignores, so as to not confuse us about his claims.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Good post Dave, although it is not likely to change the course of the political decisions associated with "climate change". Control of the data is a proven method of controlling the debate , and it follows the political science models used for controlling the debate on other topics, including food safety, nuclear energy, public health, etc. Information is power, as they used to say, and nobody likes to give up power.

"In this bright future, you can't forget your past..." Bob Marley

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

That's where the good engineer needs to ask, do my calculations reflect something of reality?

So if you can't trust the data source, can you really trust the conclusions?

Is planting cloned redwood trees a good idea?

Should carbon capture be required?

Are high taxes the one and only solution?

etc.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

3
Tony Heller/Steve Goddard might be right, NASA (…and NOAA…and MET Office…and JAXA…and an independent group of skeptics who specifically designed a data set to correct the “errors” of the other data sets, BEST) might be purposefully (and independently) fudging surface temperature data to show warming that isn’t there and (independently) getting similar results. Maybe the planet really isn’t warming and it’s all a massive fraud involving some of the best scientific institutions on the planet, from multiple different countries, and numerous prominent scientific journals. It’s a big conspiracy!

…but it gets even bigger! If all the surface temperature data sets are fudging the data that means, of course, that someone else is fudging:
Or, y’know, alternatively, this Tony Heller/Steve Goddard guy might be wrong.

If you really think the warming is all made up, you have to explain why multiple different metrics all tell the same story, which is the planet is accruing energy. Honestly, it’s one of those things, along with the greenhouse effect and the anthropogenic cause of increased atmospheric CO2 (both of which zdas04 rejects...*cough* "credibility button" *cough*), that is simply not controversial. You’re more than welcome to read the following paper – Hausfather et al 2016 - that demonstrates the accuracy of the temperature data sets.

Quote (zdas04)

His data shows clearly exactly how the climate data has been manipulated (always in the same direction).
Is that direction down? Because the balance of “manipulations” have decreased the warming trend since 1900.


Quote (davefitz)

Control of the data is a proven method of controlling the debate
...expect the data and analysis methods are open and available for anyone to review.
...expect the only group that was skeptical of the data and actually went and re-did the science, correcting all the "fudging" of other places, got the same results as those other "corrupt" places.

(PS – I hadn’t heard of “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness”, who put on this talk, but, according to Wikipedia, they give out the “Petr Beckmann Award”. Petr Beckmann was a guy that was most notable for rejecting the Theory of Relativity. Quality institution, much better than those bums at NASA..and Einstein, apparently. *cough* "credibility button" *cough*)

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
rconnor,
That is very very sad. First you do a self-righteous Call to Authority and then you end with an ad hominen attack on the host organization. Your links are utter nonsense.

Is it true that the latest set of "Final" temperature data on the NASA site contain nearly half of the current record marked as "E"stimated? Yes it is. Is it true that the basis for these estimates is the moving average within a specified radius that includes data already "adjusted" for the "heat island effect" (with disclosure of which records those edits impacted)? Yes it is. Is it true that the historical sea level data presented today shows more sea level rise in recent decades than that same data set showed 30 years ago? Yes it is. Is it true that the correlation between rate of CO2 change and the magnitude of data adjustments is nearly perfect (as in the temperature data adjustments have a target)? Yes it is.

The "conspiricy" does not have to be huge since everyone is using one of about 5 datasets. To me the bottom line of this discussion is that anyone who believes in the integrity of the data is delusional. Anyone who uses the data for purported "scientific" purposes is either delusional or dishonest. The best evidence that this hoax is coming unraveled is the suit against Exxon and the various AG efforts to prosecute "deniers"--when it reaches the point of trials for heresy yon know that the inquisitors are becoming frantic.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

zdas04, it's pretty simple, if you think the warming is all made up, then you must also assume that ice data is all made up, ocean heat content data is all made up, sea level data is all made up, glacial data is all made up, etc., because they all, independently, indicate a warming planet (the consilience of evidence is incredibly strong). This means your conspiracy runs far deeper than 5 data sets, including one specifically designed by skeptics to address the "tampering" you are so sure about in the other 4 data sets. Now, I'm sure you have no issues dismissing all that with a wave of your magical hands. Others don't find it as compelling.

Also, it's not an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to common sense. Compare the likelihood that (1) dozens of data sets, involving thousands of scientists, from dozens of different institutions and different countries, published in dozens of different peer-reviewed journals are all making up data that says the planet is accruing heat against the likelihood that (2) some random "skeptic", with an ideological reason to throw out the science, is wrong. Especially when every attempt to "prove" the data is "fudged" are either incredibly weak (such as, in the absence of any broader context, examining the temperature trend of a single city) or incredibly flawed (such as extending the results of examining the temperature trend of a single city to the entire planet).

Furthermore, if the data is so "obviously fudged", all it would take is a single paper to pulled down the whole house of cards. There is tremendous industry and political support to fund such a study, yet all we get is random blog articles and self-congratulating "conferences" involving the same dozen or so professional "skeptics", regurgitating the same debunked claims. It's disappointing really, I'd expect you folks to do better.

(Also, I see you've avoided commenting on the fact that all this "fudging" and "manipulation" has lowered the warming trend since 1900. Kinda inconvenient when your point is the exact opposite.)

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Not to mention fudging satellite photos, but then, Heller does that as well.

I agree, if the data were falsified, then why was there a "pause" and why did even last more than 5 years? Surely, the conspirators would have quickly figured out how to jigger the measurements to bring them back into line with the conspiracy's desires.

As with Moon landing and other so-called conspiracies, it's amazing that these venal, money grubbing, "scientists" have yet to cough up a single whistle blower to say, "Yea, verily, I saw manipulation of data," or "I manipulated the data." Why can't the Koch brothers even bribe someone to lie about it? If they're all that greedy, surely someone would succumb to temptation and rat out the rest. And yet, for more that 40 years, not a single person has come forward on this. Come on, the Koch brothers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on politicians, surely, even $20 million would buy one measly scientist, particularly if will assuage their conscience to do the right thing.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
IRstuff,
You are just being offensive without adding anything at all to the discussion. Please stop.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
I guess you are talking about

Quote:

I agree, if the data were falsified, then why was there a "pause" and why did even last more than 5 years?
and I will not presume to speak to the techniques used by people to manipulate data. I have no idea how subtle their goals are..

The there question I saw was

Quote:

Why can't the Koch brothers even bribe someone to lie about it?
and I really hate how the Koch brothers (who do do some great things for this country) are always the liberal medias whipping boy. The top 10 contributors to politics in this country are all liberals and liberal organizations, the last list I saw had the Koch brothers and their foundation at number 12. This question was no more "valid" than the first.

I have no clue what you are talking about with the moon landing. If the video mentioned that I must have missed it. I sure never claimed that it wasn't real. As to people manipulating climate data, some of them have come forward with stories of being asked to change data (the speaker in the video was one of them).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Who pays is irrelevant, and you should know that; the point is that no one has yet been bought or bribed to say that it's a hoax, yet, you continue to make accusations about scientists being so money-oriented that they would concoct a decades long conspiracy, and yet, they don't seem to be for sale to bolster your argument.

The reference to moon landings should likewise be obvious; it's yet another multi-decade conspiracy theory that has never been broken. Everything is faked, government scientists and engineers are all blinded by the money to subvert the truth.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

2
It doesn't have to be about money. I rather doubt it is, the money is just a handy side effect. Its about groupthink, belief in the idea of catastrophic AGW, and a willingness to ignore the scientific method. And an unbelievable reliance on rotten computer models.

The climate scientists then were employed as useful idiots by the world's politicians.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Seems like a similar groupthink on the other side, where everything is attributed to a massive conspiracy(ies) that have so far been impenetrable, yet, at the same time, many on that side claim that government and politicians are absurdly incompetent. If they were as incompetent as we're told, it would be impossible for them to maintain a perfectly radio-silent conspiracy that has lasted 4 decades. Moreover, since both political parties have had almost equal control over the government, then they both must be party to the conspiracy. Which means that their platform of rejecting AGW is a complete sham and lie, as they must be part of that conspiracy.

When your worldview presents two scenarios that are diametrically opposed as equally correct, the your worldview needs a reboot.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
IRStuff,
What the heck are you talking about? I have personally compared datasets purported to be from the same source that were dramatically different. I have then revisited the data at a later time and found that the datasets still did not match each other, but they also didn't match the first set I extracted and saved. That is an observation. Not a theory. Not a conspiracy. Simply an observation. The video is full of similar observations. If I observe that all of the data currently available does not match the data that was available 10 years ago (of course for the same time period, I'm not saying they are different because the new version has added records, don't go down that dead end) then I feel that pointing this out is useful.

I do not know why the field of climate science has such little regard for either the integrity of the data or for people's ability to compare past graphs to current graphs, but they do seem to have utter contempt for both the data integrity and the ability to document "revisions". I cannot imagine how someone can take a reading, store it in a database, and then later "discover" that it was incorrect and that it requires destructive revisions to the database rather than making revisions to a copy if indeed their time machine is that compelling.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Interesting that irstuff found it necessary to insert 'conspiracy' into his refutation of my post when I neither mentioned or implied it. That's a strawman technique. Groupthink is not a conspiracy.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Looking at the slides.

Page 2: He has a bachelor of science in geology. Not exactly related.
Page 3: Displays his chops as a lover of the environment. Good for him.
Page 4: Titled methodology. NO actual methodology listed.
Page 5: Die photo of an integrated circuit. ??? ??? ???????? I guess just to impress ?
Page 6: Questions whether the climate is warming at all. I though all have agreed on this point.
Page 7- Anecdotal selections in both time and place displayed as though it has meaning WRT global temperature.

That's about all I cared to read.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Who has taken the raw historical climate data and constructed their own global temperature reconstruction with well documented and sound techniques to make a counter claim.
If no one has why not.

Sound techniques would involve calibrating out all reasonable known errors to each data source independently and then combining using state of the art estimation techniques. Not collecting anecdotes and catchphrases.

I know of no such scientific work. If you know of one I would appreciate a link.

With so much at stake and so many people passionate about the issue all they have done is attack the current work and created none of their own.

Did the scientist destroy the raw data.. I can anticipate that angle. If so that is a tragedy.

In short why nothing but attacks.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

" I have then revisited the data at a later time and found that the datasets still did not match each other, but they also didn't match the first set I extracted and saved. That is an observation. "

Seems odd that you'd bury the lead. Why hide this? Why not post all the datasets that you've saved and their sources for all to see? Why not post the explanations of the differences so that we can all see that as well, and why you think the rationale is bogus?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I can post some of the older datasets in a couple of weeks, it would be trivial to download the latest version of them for comparison.

I would guess that if the corrections have been made transparently then the relevant organizations would have already done exactly that. When my employer releases a new version of the software the first thing we do is publish the difference in results between the old version and the new version running the same model.

If the older datasets are not readily accessible then the wayback machine may be useful.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
IRStuff,
No. I have no obligation to dig up those drives from my storeroom to spoon feed you data that you will then accuse me of having manipulated. Not going to do it. Do your own analysis and see if the data stands up to the sniff test. See for yourself if nearly half of the stations have been estimated (flagged with an "E" in the database) and ask the question "what is the basis for this estimate?". Stop looking for easy answers to difficult questions.

As to me claiming a conspiracy, I don't see where that is relevant in this thread. In this thread, I said "watch this video and decide for yourself if you thing the data has been manipulated" and have been defending myself against personal attacks ever since. I am done doing that. I ask you to go to the rawest data that you have the technical capability to analyze, pull your head out of your agenda and look at the data critically. I found that it does not stand up to critical scrutiny (as in "would I make a project decision based on data of this quality?"). I have talked to dozens of "outsiders" (i.e., people not living off AGW grants) who have taken that look for themselves and they all come away shaking their heads. Maybe you would as well. I doubt if we will ever know.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
SnarkySparky,
53 minutes of video and that is all you got? What utter garbage.
  • Page 2: He has a bachelor of science in geology. Not exactly related. So geology is not a part of climate science? Since when? I thought all earth sciences were included, it is after all a complicated subject. And even if it wasn't, so what? No PhD from East Anglica so you can discount him out of hand?
  • Page 3: Displays his chops as a lover of the environment. Good for him. Do you even have a point here?
  • Page 4: Titled methodology. NO actual methodology listed.Kind of nit picky
  • Page 5: Die photo of an integrated circuit. ??? ??? ???????? I guess just to impress ? So far we are 5/7 of the way down your list and none of your problems are with the data he presented, just attacking the man.
  • Page 6: Questions whether the climate is warming at all. I though all have agreed on this point.What ever made you think that any portion of this discussion was "settled"? If someone doesn't accept that the data is valid, how can he accept any conclusion from the data?
  • Page 7- Anecdotal selections in both time and place displayed as though it has meaning WRT global temperature.This, like the rest of your list is simply petty deflecting. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain" kind of lameness
As to your second post, the data is altered between the recording instrument and the first dataset by the owner of the recording station data. These alterations are destructive and not published. They state that the reason is that so many of the data records are corrupted and need to be converted from impossible values to null values, but that is not nearly all of it. They also "correct" for the "heat island effect" and other systemic discrepencies, but every station has its own magnitude of correction based again on unpublished algorithms.

Quote (SnarkySparky)

I know of no such scientific work.
My God, then it can't have happened, because you have exhibited such a vast knowledge of this subject. Take a look at the dataset that Berkeley has developed to look at the second tier sources (after pre-processing, because the data before pre-processing is destroyed out of hand and always has been, even before this became more of a political discussion than a scientific one) and tries to reconcile edits. They have worked incredibly hard at applying a layer of lacquer to this turd and made it all shiny, but it is still a piece of crap.

As to telling people how to calibrate temperature instruments, just don't. The people who own those stations are actually doing the best job they can with the available funds and they know very well how to get the best data out of their instruments, and would love to if they had the money. The money goes into feeding the data into computer models and vast egos, not into data collection.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"No. I have no obligation to dig up those drives from my storeroom to spoon feed you data that you will then accuse me of having manipulated. "

amusing, you require massive amounts of velidation, but you provide nothing in return. At the very minimum, you could at least point to your specific data source. Is that really asking for too much? You insult engineers and scientists and you claim that you are under attack. I can see why you think there's a conspiracy. I have accused you of nothing, yet you accuse everyone of manipulation.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
IRStuff,
The data sources are readily available. If I list them you will accuse me of cherry picking. If you do the tiny bit of work required to find them yourself then they won't be tainted by links I've provided. I started out in the first AGW thread nearly 5 years ago with a clear goal of convincing people of what I saw as facts. The reaction was a hundred lists like SnarkySparky provided, sneering at the sources without any objective discussion of the content. I got so beaten down by trying to combat that sleezy tactic that I wrote One Engineers Perspective on Global Warming and then shortly thereafter stopped posting on eng-tips.com about AGW for a year. That self-imposed exile ended late last year and I find that if anything the proponents of this hoax have gotten more strident and desperate. Maybe I should have spent longer on the sidelines.

You are the one that insists on a conspiracy. I don't need there to be a worldwide conspiracy of shadowy characters in lock step. I can envision the same outcome with a small number of disreputable politicians (in both the government and academia) controlling the agenda by controlling the purse strings. Fortunes have been made on the back on this hoax and the people making the largest fortunes are the cronies and family of the most corrupt politicians. Much like the fortunes that were made by the cronies and family of corrupt politicians during Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

No a BS in geology isn't terribly relevant to atmospheric physics.

Seven pages into his presentation that appears very much like a used car salesman wrote it with nothing but irrelevancies indicates he is not intending the document to be a genuine discussion of facts and causes but instead meant to catalyze emotions among those who prefer not to think.

Yes it is yet another 'sales' pitch to cast doubt with next to nothing of scientific relevance included.

So there are in your opinion NO data sources remaining that are untainted that could be used scientifically to create another temp reconstruction to balance the argument ??

I said "I know of no such scientific work"

You "My God, then it can't have happened, because you have exhibited such a vast knowledge of this subject."

I think if you reread what I wrote you will find I made no claim to exhaustive knowledge. I ask for sources. Do you have any??

Is seems you have staked out a convenient position yet again. You claim NO data remains in raw form to form a rebuttal.







RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
SnarkySparky,
You will not accept any link I give you, but you complain that I don't give you links to complain about? LOOK FOR YOURSELF. I found the data sets. I found explanations of how (and why) the data is "processed" between the instruments and the "raw" data set. You can too. I am not going to waste any time providing links that you will only sneer at. Pull your head out of your agenda and LOOK FOR YOURSELF. The video was full of actual, factual comparisons of NASA publications at two different times purported to have come from the same raw data that have significantly different shapes. I know what conclusions I draw from that. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS BASED ON YOUR OWN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. Don't let rconnor, IRStuff (who have both looked at the data enough to satisfy themselves), CNN, or the IPPC think for you. By the way, the most comprehensive set of paleo-data on climate has come from ... wait for it ... the geologists.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I am not a climate scientist. I don't want climate scientist telling me how to design circuits. I lack the training to interpret the data. I do understand data assimilation to a certain extent, things such as state variable estimators utilizing any correlated data to improve estimates. And yes geologists just might be the ones to provide historical measured quantities and the science to map those to historical temperatures. So I don't get into the science because I know that any real actual understanding of it would take a large amount of work. Starting from raw data sources and understanding how they were mapped to temperature and corrections that would be needed for KNOWN biases. Then doing the best possible job at combining these overlapping in time but not in location series into an estimate for Earths temp. It would be a full time job for years to actually be able to make completely independent judgments.

Too much for a hobby for me, but not I would think for serious persons interested in balancing the discussion. Where are the expert fully done studies completely independent from the 'tainted' work done so far by the climate scientists who are on the take or just ignorant that show a lesser warming rate or none at all.

As far as I know there are no such credible studies. You would think somebody could fund the work.
I will tell you my opinion about why there are no such things available. The guys with the money to fund them or the time to donate know their results would not be that much different. So people who do not like the policy trend are left to just jabbing sticks into the only body of credible research there is. And usually their efforts do not take on the real question directly they seem to only aim at stimulating emotional response to cloud the issues.

Hey i would love MMGW to be proven wrong and we would have all the time we want to burn fossil fuels without worrying about serious climate change. But there just isn't any science that shows a different historical trend or that demonstrates increased CO2 will not alter the heat balance.

In short I take the lack of credible research pointing the other way as a vindication of current climate science.



RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"I can envision the same outcome with a small number of disreputable politicians (in both the government and academia) controlling the agenda by controlling the purse strings. "

This is, by definition, a conspiracy. And if more than one government is involved, then it is a world-wide conspiracy. Based on you allegations, then those that stand to lose money would, and should, go out and buy their own politicians, particularly in Russia, since their economy is so heavily dependent on oil revenues. Given the position of incumbency and world-wide oil revenues, the fossil fuel lobbyists should always have the upper hand.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Search
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
for ten of thousand of credible research on climate research as against the limited number of loud mouth climate scientists with no scientific credibility because all their predictions are failures.

http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=1529
Use translation assistance for Engineers forum

Note the rules include No Student posting

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

The report can be downloaded.

https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-0...

I skimmed this for any actual science or references to a scientific work countering climate reconstructions or CO2 forcing but found none. I didn't read the whole thing because I saw so much propaganda in it that I categorized it as more of the same.
Now if anyone actually finds scientific references to these I would be glad to try to read it but I won't waste any more time looking for a pearl in a pile of dung.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Quote (zdas04)

As to me claiming a conspiracy, I don't see where that is relevant in this thread.
You encouraged us to watch video that accuses the international scientific community with scientific misconduct, data manipulation and something between incompetence (at best) or purposeful fraud.

You have made several comments echoing this sentiment. You’ve also insinuated that the motivation for this half century (well >100 years if we go back to Arrhenius), international scientific fraud by thousands of scientists, ~197 national scientific academies/institutions, hundreds of universities and dozens of peer-reviewed journals is money and this is all driven by governments desire for more power.

As IRstuff has indicated, this is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, this conspiracy is absolutely crucial to the point you are trying to make (the planet really isn’t warming, all this data is made up). If the conspiracy (that all these scientists/governments are fudging data for money/power) is wrong, then so is your point (the planet really isn’t warming, all this data is made up). So it is absolutely relevant in this thread.

But we haven’t purely been addressing the conspiracy, we’ve also addressed your point directly. Temperature records are not the only thing indicating a warming planet – ice extent/volume, sea level, ocean heat content, humidity, glacial mass all indicate the exact same thing – it’s really warming. You have failed to address this point and then accused us of focusing on your conspiracy.

Quote (zdas04)

I have no obligation to dig up those drives from my storeroom to spoon feed you data that you will then accuse me of having manipulated. Not going to do it. Do your own analysis and see if the data stands up to the sniff test.
Isn’t it annoying when people that don’t really have an understanding of the subject accuse you of manipulating data and then refuse to actually do any science themselves! …sound at all familiar to you?

Quote (IRstuff)

particularly in Russia, since their economy is so heavily dependent on oil revenues.
That might not be a good suggestion, IRstuff. Russia’s own metrological institute (RIHMI-WDC) also shows warming. Obviously Russia is also faking the warming, thus hurting their main revenue stream!

(For those interested, this link, that I already linked before, provides the temperature data for a number of different countries, all of which, according to some, are faking the warming.)

Quote (snarkysparky)

I know of no such scientific work. If you know of one I would appreciate a link.
I do. BEST. The only real attempt to prove the warming is all made up actually proved the warming was real. Whoops.

(Of course, after praising Richard Muller for trying to discover the "truth" that all the warming was made up, "skeptics" quickly changed their tone once his results showed nearly the exact same thing as the other data sets. Before the results were released, Anthony Watts, owner of the "skeptic" blog WUWT, stated "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong" (source)...then quickly changed his tone after seeing it validated the warming.)

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I hope no one minds if I piggyback this thread. I didn't think we needed another AGW topic, but this is related and interesting. I've seen several articles on this in the past week, and it's hard to tell if there's something to it. The AGW crowd has jumped on it like there's a murderer in their house threatening their family. The Telegraph article is part of the original round of reports. The WP article is a response/rebuttal that touches on both sides, although it's quite clear where the author stands.

In a nutshell, new solar research indicates that we're getting close to experiencing a solar minimum, which was last seen in the seventeenth century. Something about giant waves inside the sun being perfectly out of phase. This may or may not cause a mini ice age similar to the one that occurred at that time. The AGW people say CO2 effects will dwarf the effects of the solar minimum. So what do you think? Legit or propaganda? Paid by Koch brothers or pure as the driven snow?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/E...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environ...

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I believe there's research out there that says something like "yes, the AGW is masking the cooler globe".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

If you look at the number of people who want to talk about AGW, then it seems like we do need another thread on this topic.

Lets face it, talking is much better then throwing stones.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

@rb1957

I do believe I've seen it claimed that AGW is outpacing the current lower level of solar activity, but this new research is not about that. We're talking about a major solar event in 15 to 25 years. They're saying a 60 percent reduction in solar activity. I don't know if that translates one to one for the energy received by Earth, but it sounds pretty serious if it is true.

Also of note is that the solar researchers themselves did not make any conclusions about possible effects to the climate in 2035. They simply compared the predicted event to the one in the in the 17th century, which did cause a mini ice age.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

3
A continuing trend that I have observed over the past 30 years in reading publications in refereed scientific journals is that fewer and fewer authors feel the need to include enough information in their articles so that the reader is able to derive the author's results simply based on the original data they provide and the methodology presented in the paper. The authors apparently expect their audience to "trust" their interpretation of the data and the manner in which it has been adjusted in a variety of ways. Years ago when this was not typically the case and the reader had the opportunity to perform their own analysis, errors could be caught. I recall one paper where I was able to identify several errors in the equations themselves that the authors had used for data reduction. I made the lead author aware of these errors, and in a subsequent paper that I published mentioned the same. And that lead author was angry with me for years afterwards for publicly revealing his mistakes.

I believe that one of the reasons why this trend continues to occur is that the (unpaid) referees the journals use to review the submitted papers often do not want to take the time to wade through all of the data and equations to get to the point the author is attempting to make. They want a clean, clear-cut message where there is an obvious flow in the paper stating the issue at hand, the approach used by the authors, and the conclusions obtained. These papers often sit on the very bottom of the pile of things these reviewers are expected to do, and since they are not paid for this work it is something that they are not highly motivated to dedicate significant time to. For this reason they can gloss over or not inquire enough about important aspects of the author's analysis. Since most of the detailed analysis that was expected in the past is no longer included, are we to simply accept what the authors conclude based on their arguments and credentials? This is very dangerous in my opinion. If we accept what someone tells us based on the concept that they are the experts and we "mere mortals" couldn't possibly understand the complexities involved in their analysis or interpretation of the data, then something is very wrong. Either they have made some questionable assumptions which they have not properly shared, they can't be bothered to actually compile the data and equations so that we can properly review their work, their methodology is flawed and they don't want to give the reader an opportunity to find their mistakes, they are trying to sell us something, etc.

Good scientific theories stand the test of time. The bad ones are relegated to the dust bin. It will be interesting to see where the global warming theories end up.

Maui

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

FoxRox, they don't mean a 60% reduction in energy output, they mean a bignum reduction in the number of sunspots. Afaik the suns radiated power, on average, varies by one per cent or so over hundreds of years. However the energetic particles emitted as the solar wind, which cause all sorts of stuff they don't model, are more variable. I suspect that in 200 years the albedo modelling boys will be saying 'ha,and they thought it was that trace gas carbon something or other'.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

@FR, no I think the "take" is things would be much worse if it wasn't for the solar cooling (ie the decrease in solar energy)

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Maui,

I completely agree peer-review is not perfect but that’s a far cry from supporting the level of corruption that zdas04 is purporting. Furthermore, I’d argue that the level of scrutiny applied to climate science papers by the skeptic community is much more than anything seen in other fields. Just look at the amount of FOI request are launched at climate institutions/scientists. The fact that this scrutiny has not lead to many significant retractions or important contrarian papers is telling of one of two things – (1) the grand conspiracy of the mainstream camp oppressing contrarian voices and faking data is massive, global and has lasted for >50 years or (2) the opposing voices just aren’t that accurate or important.

It’s hard to believe there is any grand conspiracy to oppress contrarian papers because contrarian papers do get published. As I’ve stated before, “For example, Lewis 2013 was included and impactful in AR5. McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2005 were included and discussed in AR4. So have papers from Spencer, Christy and Lindzen, etc. been referenced in various IPCC reports. Lindzen, Tol, Christy, etc. have all been lead authors on various chapters or various IPCC reports. If and where they are valid, papers and scientists that go against the main stream view are published, referenced and discussed by the scientific community”. The problem for the contrarian position is that their arguments just aren’t that strong to change the mainstream position. The problem for the “skeptic” position is that their arguments just aren’t that accurate to get published in the first place.

What I also find hard to believe about the conspiracy is the motive. You have some that claim that money is the motive (eating at the grant trough). But this doesn’t appear that well supported as the average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. Conversely, Willie Soon, a notable climate change contrarian, received an additional $1.25 million in funding from various groups (and we needn’t go into the ethical or professional issues related to Soon referring to these papers as “deliverables” while failing to disclose any conflicts of interest) while holding a position at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It seems that there is quite a bit of industry and think tank support for a relatively small set of contrarian scientists. If they are “in it for the money”, I’d argue they’d be better off being a contrarian.

Another motivation might be prestige. Many academics and researchers enter the field to be the one to uncover that big, Kuhnian-level revolutionary discovery. This, to me, is much more likely as the money in academia is poor. However, this motivation would, again, directly counter the conspiracy as one would be much more motivated to find THE paper that disproves the current notion of climate science. Conversely, the prestige around being the one to find the 348,281 paper that demonstrates that the other 348,280 papers were pretty accurate is not nearly as appealing. You see this motivation in this thread – the Galileo Gambit, emphasized by zdas04’s signature, is so prevalent in the “skeptic” camp. The desire to be the second coming of Galileo AND protect your ideological view on the role of government and the free-market, hot darn, that’s got to be appealing! (and I think it clouds their, otherwise good, judgment.)

The prestige motivator, that is much stronger on the contrarian side than on the mainstream side, also works against the idea that groupthink would be causing the vast majority of academics and academic institutions to agree with the mainstream view. Groupthink is likely a factor but the motivation to prove the “group” wrong is one of the single strongest drivers in academia. It’s actually a nice self-correcting aspect of academia. The fact that the quality of evidence attacking the mainstream thinking is so poor (and usually unpublished) is more likely evidence that the mainstream thinking, even if there is some groupthink involved, is accurate. Remember, groupthink doesn't necessarily mean the groups thinking is wrong.

So yes, peer-review isn’t perfect and groupthink exists. However, that doesn’t even come close to supporting the massive conspiracy zdas04 requires to support his view on temperature data. If anything, the current state of academia would encourage more contrarian viewpoints. The fact that we see so few, and fewer still of good quality, is much more likely because the viewpoint is weak or inaccurate, not that it is suppressed by a global conspiracy that has no support.

(FoxRox, off topic but it seems like a genuine question which I’ve already wrote about, so I’ll direct you to those comments – see here at 7 Oct 15 22:02 (under section 1) c) Solar) or at 12 Nov 15 20:35 (first paragraph). And yes, the projections are based off models, however a check can be done by comparing the impact of solar activity over the recent past. Solar activity has been slumping since ~1970, all while global temperatures have warmed. Also, nights are warming faster than days and the stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming. These are all things that you’d expect from greenhouse warming but are completely counter to solar activity.

Regarding the impact of cosmic rays, which GregLocock insinuated haven’t been studied, see my reply here at 12 May 14 12:53 (under GCR/Solar Activity) where I highlight four papers that indicate there is no evidence that GCR’s significantly impact climate.

The “take”, in my opinion, isn’t that it would be “much worse”, it's that it might be slightly warmer (~hundredth(s) of a degree) if it weren’t for the decrease in solar activity.

I like this quote by Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert regarding the hypothesis that solar activity is causing the recent change in climate, “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.” Seeing as solar activity has had a small impact on recent changes I think it’s very unlikely that a grand solar minimum, even a perpetual one, will be more influential than greenhouse gas warming.)

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

snarkysparky (and zdas04),

You can also have a look at Clear Code Project which attempted to recreate GISTEMP code from scratch in Python. This isn't a review of the methods (as they are trying to emulate the GISTEMP analysis methods) but it does check that there is no "black box" fudging going on in the code. They were able to reproduce almost the exact same results as GISTEMP. Their code is open for anyone to investigate.

You can also look at Anderson et al 2012 (video explanation here) which examines 173 different data sets using natural temperature sensitive proxies(corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents) to produce a temperature reconstruction and compares that against modern ground based temperature data sets. The results show a strong match, increasing the consilience of the evidence and adding yet another independent method that zdas04 has to claim is faked to show a warming planet (that makes (1) temperature data, (2) ice extent/volume data, (3) ocean heat content data, (4) glacial mass data, (5) sea level data, (6) humidity data and (7) natural temperature proxy data).

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"an additional $1.25 million in funding from various groups" are you implying that money was a paycheck? More likely it was used for funding of the team and work done, as very few climate scientists work alone (I would think).
Grants may be hard to find on the business side as few businesses can see a profit. Government can justify grants with little importance to value.

However, without data being presented it does leave one to suspect something might be amiss.
Without data being presented, how would the granter know the work was actually done, and not just a payoff?



RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

No, I was not implying the money was in the form of paychecks (or going into his pocket); it was funding for research. If I was implying that the money went into his pocket I would have said "he was paid...".

My point was that there is lots of money available for a small set of contrarians and I’d argue the money is perhaps better for contrarians then those with the mainstream view. What can definitely be said is the whole “money grubbing scientists selling their integrity for a slice of the sweet, sweet climate change money” scenario makes no sense as (1) the money for climate scientists is poor (~$70,770 on average) and (2) there is plenty of money available for contrarians.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
OK, how about we knock off the irrelevancies? Explain why the Heat Wave of the 1930's and the cooling period from 1930 to 1980 was very visible in NOAA and NASA graphs generated before 2000 and those events are missing from the 2015 data. Just explain the methodology that modifies 80 year old data significantly downward. How does the historical record change from one agenda to the next? Whether the presenter in the video has adequate qualifications or not (and LANL, Sandia, NCRC, and Congress have all found his qualifications adequate, but he's just a Geologist, Electrical Engineer, and programmer so you can discount him if you want), the historical records that he shows are real. The current graphs OF THE SAME TIME PERIODS are real. Significant data trends are missing from the current published graphs. Why?

Rconnor,
The Anderson paper is a perfect example of what is wrong with the AGW agenda. He takes 173 datasets that were all created from proxies that have a tenuous link to temperature and all require huge amounts of processing against hundreds of assumptions to convert the proxy into a temperature. All of these assumptions and all of these programs were developed by people who have a personal financial interest in NOT answering the key question "is there anything else that could have caused the observed proxy value?". Amazing that they all match isn't it? No "conspiracy of science" is required here, just "informed self interest" on the part of the scientists. Remove the bias created by the funding mechanism and anyone would find these proxy efforts to be amazingly creative theoretical work. With the bias created by the funding mechanism it is simply a body of self-fulfilling prophecies. The same proxy data run against a slightly different set of assumptions would reach different conclusions.

The Clear Code project is interesting. Did you notice that Canada (3.85 million square miles of area) has about 100 stations? Something like 300,000 square miles is represented by each station. That sure is a big area to consider universally homogeneous.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"3.85 million square miles of area) has about 100 stations? Something like 300,000 square miles is represented by each station. That sure is a big area to consider universally homogeneous."

Perhaps herein lies a problem. 3.85 million sq.mi/100 stations = 38,500 sq.mi/station. Someone must be using those special non-AGW calculators.

Geller, on chart 26, is titled "What Is Going On Here? Figure 2 Doesn’t Match Figure 1" Yet, Figure 1 is a graph of "Annual Heat Wave Index", while Figure 2 is titled "Area of the Contiguous 48 States with Unusually Hot Summer Temperatures" As described on the EPA website that these graphs were obtained, "Heat Index," notes "An index value of 0.2 (for example) could mean that 20 percent of the country experienced one heat wave, 10 percent of the country experienced two heat waves, or some other combination of frequency and area resulted in this value." So, there is not necessarily any obvious correlation between Figures 1 and 2, and to claim that they must belies any credibility the author might have had, based on his credentials of "Software Development Of Climate And Weather Models For NCAR" He claims that he's spent 10 years analyzing data archives, yet, he willy nilly compares two graphs that are not even graphing the same thing, otherwise, they would be the same graph, without bothering to show even one iota of explanation why the underlying data is incorrect. By his own descriptions, he should have been able to show that the area component of Figure 1 doesn't match Figure 2's. Now, that would have been something really meaningful, but he didn't, so that's a perfect example of what is wrong with the anti-AGW agenda, where things are just thrown against the wall to see what sticks, by making a powerful accusation that's completely baseless without the actual analysis.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
Ya' got me. Trivial calculations should never be treated trivially. I did a calculation incorrectly and now my whole position is invalid. Gimme a break. The point remains the same. Each station defines an area that would be between the area of South Carolina and the area of West Virginia. Far too big to be treated as a homogeneous unit. Especially when the stations are clustered along the U.S./Canada border and around cities. The stations north of Edmonton are probably closer to the 300,000 sq miles I mentioned (it is very hard to identify this fact since the Environment Canada list includes almost 1,000 stations that haven't been in service this century).

The rest of your post is simply condemning the entire talk because you don't understand his point on a particular slide. Sleazy tactic. Where is the 1930's heat wave in any contemporary dataset you care to use? Where is the 1940-1980 cooling in any contemporary dataset you care to use? These were in the data set at one time and are not there now. They were broadly reported in both the mainstream media and the scientific literature. Copies of those publications are still available. A paper published by Hanson in 1996 with a graph that clearly shows these two clearly identifiable multi-year trends does not match papers published by NOAA and NASA today that purport to use the same dataset that Hanson used in the last century.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

zdas04,

(NOTE: When I wrote this I assumed you were talking about global temperatures, which would be relevant. After reading IRstuff’s response, it sounds like you might be talking about US data only, which is only 2% of the surface of the planet. If you want to claim global warming is fake, you better be talking about global temperature data sets. If you’re not, then (1) IRstuff has already covered that (and you can read Hausfather et al 2016, linked above, or more info here) and (2) you better explain the relevancy of small adjustments to 2% of the surface compared to global temperature data.)

During WWII, sea surface temperatures went from being taken by buckets to hull intake of ships. Buckets read cool compared to hull intake (and vise versa). After WWII, buckets took back up a bit of the share but slowly declined as hull intake and, later, buoys took over. See here for a graphical representation of the distribution (from Kennedy et al. 2011).

The transition from buckets to hull intake requires homogenization, as they give two different values for the same water. As we are concerned with relative anomalies, you can either adjust buckets to match hulls or hulls to match buckets. The former was chosen but they could have adjusted buckets to hulls but, as we are talking about trends in anomalies, there is no real difference (other than it’s more accurate to adjust to hulls than to adjust to buckets) as it would have purely shifted the data and baseline down by the same amount, keeping anomalies the same. This meant that the “bucket adjustments” warmed pre-1940 data. This decreases the 20th century warming trend. See this graph from Kevin Cowtan (York University) that indicates the amount of adjustments over time and this graph from Kennedy et al 2011 which illustrates the difference between the pre (red) and post (black) adjustment data.

Quote (zdas04)

How does the historical record change from one agenda to the next?
“Skeptics” see these adjustments (that reduces the warming trend) as “manipulation” to fake warming (by reducing it???) but, in reality, they are improvements on the data sets that incorporates better information, data and techniques. The methods are discussed in peer-reviewed literature. Different data sets use different methods. They all tell the same story.

Quote (zdas04)

Amazing that they all match isn't it?
You take multiple different data sources, apply the appropriate, well documented, peer-reviewed methods to each to produce a temperature proxy. Yes, they contain inaccuracies but they agree with all other different data sources. This is consilience of evidence. However, conspiracy theorist might take it as evidence that the conspiracy as bigger than they thought.

So zdas04, I’ve addressed your concern, now will you address mine? If you think that temperature data sets have faked all the warming, then how come ice extent/volume data shows decreasing ice (indicating warming), ocean heat content data shows increasing OHC (indicating warming), glacial mass data shows decreasing mass (indicating warming), sea level data shows rising sea level (indicating warming), humidity data shows increasing humidity (indicating warming) and natural temperature proxy data shows warming (indicating warming). Even a temperature data set specifically designed by skeptics to correct all the “manipulation” actually ended up proving the warming was, indeed, real.

How do you explain all this? Is it all faked? How come no one has been able to produce a “real” data set that shows the “real” lack of warming? Seriously, you need a massive, unprecedented (certainly in the scientific community) conspiracy of data manipulation, scientific malpractice and oppression of contrarian viewpoints to hand wave all this away. So, again, your conspiracy is not just relevant to your point, it’s a requirement for your point.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

The recent CERN findings re: cloud seeding by aerosols from trees and related cloud forming effects amplified by cosmic particles further confirms Svensmark's hypothesis, and will eventually force changes in the computer models that had exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. There also seems to be large variations in how the media discuss these results , based on the language in use.

For example, for the difference between how the English language media deals with these new findings vs german media see <http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/30/though-media-re...;. So, in addition to modeling variances and personal attachments to different conclusions ( that border on religiosity) , there are also differences associated with language and cultural differences.

I would guess that the required changes in the models that will be needed to be made in recognition of the CERN results will lead to a reduction of the impact of CO2 on climate by a factor of 3, and I also have the opinion that hysterical propaganda related to AGW / ACC serves as a useful proxy for changing consumer habits that would be needed to avert a separate crisis, related to rapid consumption of limited fossil fuels ( similar to "peak oil")

"In this bright future, you can't forget your past..." Bob Marley

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"The rest of your post is simply condemning the entire talk because you don't understand his point on a particular slide."

I understand his point perfectly, which is to claim that two somewhat related graphs are supposed to 100% ("match") correlated. I suggest that you read the NOAA webpage and try to come up with a meaningful way that those two graphs should be identically correlated.

" Where is the 1930's heat wave in any contemporary dataset you care to use?"
It's right there is Heller's chart 26, which is published on the NOAA webpage that Heller got it from. So, how is it that NOAA is supposedly hiding or manipulating the data when it's published on their webpage?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Davefitz,

Again, off-topic but I suppose this is an attempt to disprove my statements made to FoxRox, which it does not. So obviously some clarification is needed.

The research does not validate Svensmark’s hypothesis – the research says that GCRs appear to impact clouds but it does not even come close to saying that GCRs drive climate. Svensmark’s hypothesis doesn’t track observations and GCRs are still far too weak a forcing to impact climate to the rate we’ve seen. Furthermore, Svensmark’s hypothesis has been predicting cooling for a while now. Svensmark stated in Sept 2009, “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” (source WUWT). In reality, GISTEMP Temperature in Sept 2009 – 0.69 deg C (or 0.64 deg C for 2009). GISTEMP Temperature in 2016 (up to June) – 1.10 deg C. (source).

(GISTEMP Data for past 30 years with a trend line from Sept 2009 to Present)

His hypothesis doesn't just slightly over/under estimate the cooling, he gets the bloody sign wrong!

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

3
We may be missing the real point. The question is not whether there are trends in the data. The world has to have warming and cooling trends. There are too many variables. As an example, I once saw a NOAA paper that concluded that the cyclical nature of space dust could result in 30% of observed global temperature changes. The real question is how much of todays global temperature fluctuation is man made and unnatural. If I was a person who believed that the ends justify the means (and I am not), I would observe the natural trend taking place, and skew the data in a way that exaggerates mans contribution or visa versa depending on your position. Of course this can be done on a massive scale. Just look at liberal vs conservative philosophy trends. People are constantly accepting only data that supports their position, up to and including firing people who disagree. After a few decades, the subset of people with a particular mindset can tip the scales on an international level. It does not require a conspiracy, just a vested interest in a particular outcome and plenty of like minded grant support.
If the world is warming consistent with natural tendencies, we may waste our time and treasure trying to stop it. If mankind is in fact exacerbating the warming unnaturally, we may be too late. Unfortunately, its hard to tell who to trust. Rarely do I see a discussion separating out the natural from the unnatural and why. And then, there is the additional frustration regarding those who imply that nothing is happening. Global warming does not have to be manmade to be a problem. If there is a much warmer future, we better determine how to deal with it. And another thing, when did we just decide that its OK to pollute the atmosphere. There are some who act like we have some kind of right to pollute and dump whatever we want to as long as it "employs people".
Back to the original post, changing the data locations, or as were mentioned in other posts, relying on single data points from too large an area, or adjusting the data based on measurement methods, unfortunately lend themselves by their very nature to subconscious and intentional skewing. There is much more passion and financial motivation for skewing in the direction of man made global warming. The fact that the man caused portion happens to coincide when the most significant upwards temperature change would naturally appear provides a perfect opportunity for the aforementioned involuntary of cynical data skewing. And finally, the hyperbole that we heard in the 1990's is also an indicator of possible data "coaxing". Much of the US was supposed to be underwater by 2014 (a la John Kerry). The ocean laps at the same location on a rock that I have been fishing off of for almost 30 years, at all different tide stages.

This has become really annoying.
Thanks for letting me vent.

Thanks,
Mark

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

It appears that everything is going to be just fine - Keep Calm and Carry On, eh!

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/07/26/Scienti...

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Oh, and here are a couple of gems from Pieter Tans, the scientists in charge of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, taken from this article: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/06/17/CO2-hit...

Quote exhibit A: "Researchers say CO2 levels haven't been this high at the South Pole in 400 million years." (Implying that CO2 levels, have, in fact, been this high prior to man's influence)

Quote Exhibit B: "We know from abundant and solid evidence that the CO2 increase is caused entirely by human activities," Tans added. (a rather tacit affirmation to the contrary of previous quote)

Hmmmmmm, I wonder why there is doubt regarding the veracity of all of this "data". I find it utterly hilarious.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"Hmmmmmm, I wonder why there is doubt regarding the veracity of all of this "data". I find it utterly hilarious."

Sure, if you want to misinterpret everything. No one has said the CO2 levels weren't as high or even much higher. The issue is that a) no humans were alive then, but it was bloody hot, and b) the natural processes that drove those prior increases took tens of thousands of years to happen, while this rise took less than 200 years. That's essentially a step function rise in geological terms (see below), and the mechanisms that could possibly compensate for that rise take hundreds of thousands of years to kick in. Step functions are generally to be avoided in anything but a digital system, which is not the earth, so such a drastic rise in such a short time scale could create effects that might not have even happened in previous rises.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
IRStuff,
What exactly is that chart representing? Are you saying that the size of the atmosphere has changed and is more than 15 times larger today than it was then? The story that ornerynorsk shared was talking about the ppm of CO2 was higher during that event. Your graph is really confusing.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I couldn't find the 200 year mark on your graph, and the temperature hasn't risen 14 degrees. It's a prediction, not history, you're speaking in past tense as if it had happened already.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Seaggie,

Quote (seaggie)

The real question is how much of todays global temperature fluctuation is man made and unnatural.
That’s a completely different topic and has already discussed. Search the last thread for where I talk about the argument “it’s natural” or “it’s changed before” (at 11 Jul 16 17:31, 12 Jul 16 15:48).

Quote (seaggie)

It does not require a conspiracy, just a vested interest in a particular outcome and plenty of like minded grant support.
Claiming purposeful data manipulation to suite a specific narrative is a very serious allegation. Claiming purposeful data manipulation by the thousands of scientists that work on numerous different data sets, all of which, independently, tell the same story, supported by dozens of different international institutions, peer-reviewed journals and governments and systematic suppression of any dissenting voices (all of which is a foundational requirement of the position that “all the warming is faked”) is a conspiracy theory.

But let’s talk about groupthink for a second. Firstly, groupthink could explain why most scientists agree that there is warming, granted, as it could with any prevailing scientific theory. Groupthink cannot explain an international conspiracy to manipulate data and the suppression of contrarian voices in peer-reviewed paper and scientific/academic institutions. Furthermore, groupthink applies to both groups in the debate – the mainstream view and the contrarian view. The question is, which group is more likely to be adversely influenced by groupthink, such that they’d agree with something that is not (or is less likely) true. Let’s start by reviewing the composition of both groups:

Mainstream view - International community of professional scientists (including many card carrying Republicans like Richard Alley), from dozens of different countries (including ones as ideologically different as US and Russia and China) and from dozens of different institutions (ranging from those “anti-human” eco “zealots” at the Department of Defense to NASA to large and small universities to The Russian Federation’s National Security Strategy (see point 23)).

Contrarian view - A much smaller group of contrarians, almost exclusively with a small government/libertarian/free-market enthusiast mentality, working for right-wing think tanks, writing right-wing blogs. Even those contrarians that work in (neutral) university institutions almost always partake in right-wing think tanks or right-wing blogs (Spencer, Curry, Pielke, etc.).

Which group would be more impacted by groupthink? Which one would be more ideologically motivated to hold a particular view on the science (regardless of the science)?

So yes, I think groupthink is likely a factor. However, it’s a little difficult to accuse the first group of groupthink while not acknowledging the much more obvious groupthink in the second group. The mono-ideologically identity of contrarians and the “convenient” opinion that the science, that leads to outcomes counter to their ideology, is all wrong is about as obvious an example of groupthink as imaginable. Furthermore, groupthink cannot be used to justify a belief that “all the warming is faked”.

Quote (seaggie)

There is much more passion and financial motivation for skewing in the direction of man made global warming.
Utter nonsense. See above. You think that skewing data as to hurt the oil industry is something that Russia would do (see above, Russian’s meteorological institute also shows warming)? You don’t think there is a “financial motivation” behind Koch and Exxon funding “skeptic” think tanks? You don’t think there is “passion” behind libertarian think tanks producing “research” that goes against the science?

You, and other “skeptics”, seem to think that Greenpeace or the Sierra Club invented climate science. They didn’t. They may repeat the science and, often, exaggerate it (hence why I never reference them) but climate science stands independent from environmentalist groups. The theory resulted in the culmination of thousands of peer reviewed papers in the best journals we have, produced by the best scientific institutions we have.

On the contrary, climate change “skepticisms” (such as “all the warming is faked”, “the greenhouse effect isn’t real”, “CO2 increases are natural”, “it’s changed before) is produced in libertarian think tanks and echoed by like minded blog sites. Almost every single contrarian group/think tank I can think of shares the exact same, painfully obvious, ideological opposition to climate change science.

Now, there is true, valid and appreciated contrarian viewpoints. It may not stand the tests of scientific scrutiny over time but it has some value and, if nothing else, still provides good questions for investigation. But that is already well incorporated into the scientific viewpoint (for example, see the impact Lewis et al 2013 had on the sensitivity range in IPCC AR5).

Ornerynorsk,

I really shouldn’t bother but did you even read the last few sentences of the piece you referenced (as an attempt to say, “it’s no big deal!”)? Let me repeat them to you, “the process won't happen quickly or soon enough to stave off the more devastating consequences of global warming. "If the PETM is any guide, it will take tens of thousands of years," Penman said.” Talk about an own goal!

Your second post might be even worse. You seem to think the statement, “Researchers say CO2 levels haven't been this high at the South Pole in 400 million years", as evidence that current CO2 levels are no big deal. This has to be a joke. Tell me, what were human civilizations and human agricultural practices like 400 million years ago? Oh, humans hadn’t even evolved yet, you say! Tell me, what happened the last time CO2 levels spiked over geological short time scales (thousands of years)? Oh, a mass extinction, you say! Tell me, was the rate of rise in CO2 and temperature during those mass extinction events faster than the rate of rise in CO2 and temperature seen today? Oh, they were actually orders of magnitude slower than today, you say! Well, I guess that’s another own goal for you.

Thanks for playing.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

rconnor,
Thanks for you thoughtful reply. I am about 90% sure that the world is warming. My concern is that the minute I find a good story, someone refutes it.

Regarding "group think". Keep in mind that the scientific community accepted Aristotle's Spontaneous Generation theory for over a thousand years.

I'll have to address the rest later.

Thanks,
Mark

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

No, thank YOU for playing! It takes a couple of hardcore enthusiasts to make the game exciting.

So let’s say for a moment that CO2, and CO2 alone, is the cause, and reducing it will stave off all of the untold horrors that are fueling everyone’s cause for high blood pressure. According to IRstuff's recent chart, we should cut output by a factor of 15, and even then we're still eventually in trouble. What does that mean in terms of real impact on the developed world’s daily life? No more air travel? Rolling brownouts or electrical rationing at a level not to exceed what percentage of the current usage? No personal vehicles getting less than x miles per gallon? I’m not talking voluntary measures, what are the mandatory measures that are going to be required and enforced of the population at large?

And here’s the $64K question . . . how do you implement it without immediate and widespread revolution? Are people going to be that understanding and have the foresight and ability to suppress their own comfy lifestyles? We are talking about way more than carbon taxes here. This has the tone of a Soviet style system where all of us peasants get to go live in the countryside and raise cabbage whilst the elite still do what they do. I'm serious as a heart attack, what is a real solution, because these feel-good ideas like carbon tax and sequestration either don't have the real clout or the scalability to do the job.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Hidden sugar in food likely has more ill effects than coal smoke. Yet the media is more concerned about coal smoke (or what they think is coal smoke).

So how do you measure the amount of CO2 from a coal plant? We provide the numbers, and the media does not believe us. Are the numbers reported real, or made up? Depends on your source.

Has anyone measured the other gases in natural gas? You do know there are plants to extract He from raw natural gas, so what else is left in there? Maybe radon?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
cranky108.
Yeah, there are times to both determine the makeup of inerts in natural gas and times to determine trace components. It doesn't get done all that often, but it does get done. I've never seen radon show up in the trace analysis, but who knows, the next field over may have some.

An interesting story (at least to me). I ran Amoco's Reserve Inventory System in the 1980's. During that time we developed the Bravo Dome CO2 field in NE New Mexico to produce CO2 for an enhanced oil recovery project in the Permian Basin. I believe it was 1983. That year we booked the CO2 reserves and it was a very very large number. During the annual crises to get year-end reserves reports to the regulators and stockholders (reserves represents the single largest asset of any oil company, usually over 90% of the total assets) I got a call on a Sunday Afternoon that worldwide gas reserves were 4 times the closing reserves of the previous year. After a number of phone calls, the lead programmer and I went to the office. 20 hours of digging later we determined that all the numbers were reasonable except the division that included New Mexico. The programmer finally said, it is the Bravo Dome stuff, look at the size of that number. I stared at him for a long time and finally asked if he had added CO2 and Natural Gas? He said "they are both in MCF, why not add them?". My point is that there is a lot of stuff in the ground (the next field over from Bravo Dome is the biggest Helium field ever discovered). I don't remember the exact numbers 30 years later, but the CO2 in Bravo Dome and the Uinta Field in Utah would make up a significant percentage of the entire atmosphere. Wonder where that came from?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Quote (ornerynorsk)

Oh, and here are a couple of gems from Pieter Tans, the scientists in charge of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, taken from this article: http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/06/17/CO2-hit...

Quote exhibit A: "Researchers say CO2 levels haven't been this high at the South Pole in 400 million years." (Implying that CO2 levels, have, in fact, been this high prior to man's influence)

Quote Exhibit B: "We know from abundant and solid evidence that the CO2 increase is caused entirely by human activities," Tans added. (a rather tacit affirmation to the contrary of previous quote)

Hmmmmmm, I wonder why there is doubt regarding the veracity of all of this "data". I find it utterly hilarious.

1) ~400 million years ago was the second-largest extinction event in planetary history. That's a pretty big deal. "It happened before" is no reason to think it's "ok".

2) That a high CO2 concentration existed before humans, does not in any way mean all high CO2 concentrations are caused by sources other than humans. Your logic sorely lacking.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

JNieman,

The Devonian period spanned from 419 million years ago to 359 million years ago. During this period,

Quote:

CO2 levels dropped steeply throughout the Devonian period as the burial of the newly evolved forests drew carbon out of the atmosphere into sediments; this may be reflected by a Mid-Devonian cooling of around 5 °C (9 °F)..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian

The late Devonian extinction is described here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Devonian_extinc...


Maui

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

The intelligent populations ~400 million years ago were dumping so much CO2 that they killed off there own existence.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Thank-you for point number 2 JNieman. My logic happens to be quite lucid, I assure you. My point being that humans, in fact, do not necessarily cause all of the rise in CO2. In fact, it's quite accurate to say that the highest levels of CO2 in earth's history had absolutely no help whatsoever from humans.

Now, if I were the worrying type, which I'm not, I would be far more worried about what we have absolutely no control over, than what we do. 400 ppm might be the least of our worries. Sorry, I don't intentionally mean to be flippant, but let's keep perspective. What's the point in effectively enslaving the human race to a stone-age like existence with taxes and regulation if it may be of no consequence. Bon vivant!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Quote (ornerynorsk)

the highest levels of CO2 in earth's history had absolutely no help whatsoever from humans
Of course they didn’t but they also weren’t caused by MAGIC! Past spikes in CO2 were usually massive volcanic action or bolide impacts. Orbital cycles can impact CO2 concentrations as well but that process takes thousands of year.

So what does you point say about the recent change in CO2? Absolutely nothing. It’s a non sequitar. Or perhaps you can enlighten me on the massive volcanic eruption or bolide impact that caused this spike in CO2. None have occurred. Orbital cycles cannot explain the rate or timing or even direction of CO2 rise (the next cycle, in ~50,000 years will reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations). So all the mechanisms that caused past increases in CO2 cannot explain the timing, rate or extent of the recent increase.

So what caused it? You might say MAGIC! I say human activities. It’s almost certainly, based off numerous lines of evidence, the latter.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Yes, you're right - humans are not the only cause of elevated CO2 (above normal levels that support life as we know/like it) but then again, that's a point which fights an argument no one is making. No one is saying the current elevated levels of CO2 MUST be anthropogenic because humans are the only ones who could do it... rather, they draw from logical conclusions that support the assertion. Me, I personally do NOT care one BIT whether or not the source is anthropogenic or not. I care only that 1) greenhouse gases are increasing into dangerous levels, and 2) whether or not, and how, we can make a difference to mitigate problems. I only say that so that you don't immediately caste me into some "AGW zealot" and assume too much about my opinions/motivations. I'm mainly reading along for educational purposes and thought I saw a pretty big flaw in your post.

I agree with the ineffectiveness of 'carbon credits' and such feel-goods. It's silly political pandering. That doesn't affect the science. In fact, I think politics (like usual) is the biggest enemy of credibility in science.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
rconnor,
Nice matrix. Has about as much value as this one

In other words, when you say that the timing "strongly supports" anthropogenic sources you are saying that you are perfectly willing to ignore anything that even hints that CO2 lags warming by 50-450 years that your climate proxies support as well as the apparent thinking that it leads warming by a few minutes. Sorry Tic-Tac-Toe is more productive.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"No one is saying the current elevated levels of CO2 MUST be anthropogenic"

Sorry JNieman, hate to beat a dead horse and be an a$$ about it, but that is EXACTLY what "everyone" (hyperbole intended) is saying !!!

I do wholeheartedly agree with you about the politics of it.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Ok, are we now at the point where we are questioning if we are responsible for increased CO2 levels? I mean you can witness CO2 emissions yourself when you start your car. I'm not sure what there is to dispute here.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
"You can witness CO2 emissions yourself when you start your car"????? Give me a break. You can witness them when a moose exhales as well. Polar bear populations are up and they are all exhaling too. The permafrost is retreating in the northern hemisphere (no one is saying that temperatures don't change, just disagreeing about why they are changing) and every foot of retreat exposes cubic miles of organic material to biological activity. I'm sure that has nothing to do with increasing atmospheric CO2, it is just my Land Rover. See if that passes the red-face test for you personally.

In 2014 when I was writing One Engineer's Perspective on Global Warming I looked for a non-political list of the sources of atmospheric CO2 (man, his chattels and artifacts were number 9, Krill was number one followed by termites and rotting vegetation which together were over 80% of the total) and found 3 sources that I found to be reputable and largely agreed with each other. That was August 2014. Two years ago. This morning I put in the same query and found incredibly detailed breakdowns of anthropogenic sources, NOTHING on other sources. They are all either gone or are being filtered by Google, Bing, and Yahoo. I do not have a clue what is going on, but nearly half of the bookmarks in my "Climate Change" folder give me a 404 error this morning. I'm sure that it is just a coincidence that data that was readily available 2 years ago is not coming up today and that stored links have been taken down wholesale. Nothing to see here. No one is messing with data.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

3
If you don't accept that the CO2 rise is largely the result of human activities, there is no level of evidence that will convince you of anything in relation to the entire climate change topic. Further conversation with people who deny this is totally pointless.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

The moose exhales CO2 that came from plants. The plants absorbed it from the atmosphere. So the moose can't increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is a basic grade school level understanding of the carbon cycle.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
canwesteng,
That is absolutely true on a geologic timescale. It is absolutely untrue on a day to day timescale.

moltenmetal,
If you do accept that the CO2 rise is largely the result of human activities, there is no level of evidence that will convince you of anything in relation to the entire climate change topic. Further conversation with people who deny this is totally pointless. Wonder where that leaves us?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Are you implying that the internet is being censored? Could it be that the three internet sites you listed are run by left leaning CEO's?

Is this also where you look for study results on this topic? May this also be the reason most people can't find different points of view?

This may have nothing to do with this topic, but more to do with the worldview of the CEO's of these sites.

Sort of reminds me of the media over all.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

getting back to the original question ... am i right in thinking that they overwrite the original data ? that has to be unusual treatment of data.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

data sets using natural temperature sensitive proxies(corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents

since when does sensitive proxy = temperature measurement? Since the thermometer has only been in wide spread use for say 150 years to be generous, there really is not much actual data out there. I'm glad we can "reconstruct" all the necessary temperature data from these sensitive proxies.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

how many say "if the current tread continues ..." ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Zdas04,

How about you read the article I linked (here again). It explains, in detail and with supporting evidence, the chart. Or how about you address the simple mass balance reasoning.

Better yet, how about we return to the subject at hand – temperature data sets.

Zdas04, and the video he linked, make a claim that temperature data is corrupted, by purposeful manipulation by the scientists who produce them, in an attempt to fake the recent warming. They focus on USHCN data to “support” this claim. Here I will outline 4 reasons why their claim is complete nonsense. The TL;DR is point 3 – adjustments to global temperature data reduce the warming trend (good explanation from Zeke Hausfather of BEST and Victor Venema of Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn here). If nothing else, zdas04 needs to address this point. He has failed to do so thus far.

1) Adjustments to USHCN Are Required Due to TOBS (and Other Inhomogeneities)
The vast array of stations in the USHCN, or any network for that matter, are not static. New stations are added and removed, stations are moved, non-climatic conditions by stations change, instruments change and when and how observations are recorded change. If you took the raw readings, blind to all of these factors, you would get an erroneous data set; you have to adjust for these factors. Anyone claiming that “any adjustments to raw data are unjust manipulation” is dead wrong and has no idea what they are talking about.

The biggest adjustment in USHCN is Time of Observation Bias (TOB or TOBS) adjustments. Early in the data sets history, the majority of observations were taken in the afternoon but, over time, this practice was switched to being taken in the morning (see here from Menne et al 2009). If you go from taking the temperature in the afternoon to taking the temperature in the morning, you’re going to create a spurious cooling in the data. The temperature didn’t magically become colder the moment you made that switch, so you must correct for it. You can either adjust the AM readings to match the PM readings (raise the later temperatures) or the other way around (lower the earlier temperatures). Either way, the trend and the anomalies would be the same. Note that the switch from PM to AM readings started around 1960 and grows to present and the increase in warming adjustment (if you adjust AM readings to PM reading) or decrease in cooling adjustment (if you adjust PM readings to AM readings) occurs around 1960 and grows to the present (image and analysis by Zeke Hausfather of BEST).

“Skeptics” like to think that these adjustments are done behind a veil of smoke and mirrors. This is untrue. The data and methods are published in peer reviewed journals and most is easily accessible from their website. Information regarding the rationale and methods for these adjustments can be found in Menne et al 2009. There are also groups such as the International Surface Temperature Initiative, which includes scientists like Victor Venema, Peter Stott of Hadley Center and Jay Lawrimore of NOAA, that invite inquiry and review of temperature data. Far from taking a stance of draconian control over the data, these scientists are creating channels to help further improve the data.

“Skeptics” also like to think that these adjustments are all wrong and purposeful manipulation to make up “fake” warming trend. Again, this is untrue. Beside the USHCN, the US also has a network of very tightly controlled, closely monitored reference sites, called USCRN. The USCRN can be used as a control adjust the biases introduced by station moves, TOBS and non-climatic changes in the USHCN. A recent study, Hausfather et al 2016 , provided a comprehensive review of USHCN against USCRN to determine the accuracy of the USHCN and the homogenization methods used therein. They found excellent agreement between the two data sets, indicating USHCN and the homogenization methods are accurate. See co-author Kevin Cowtan’s website for more information and details.


For more information see this post by Victor Venema on TOBS adjustments or this article from NOAA or this post by Steven Mosher of BEST (note: Steven Mosher is a self-declared “lukewarmer”).

2) The US Represents 2% of the Planet
Zdas04 and Heller/Goddard’s claim states that global warming is “faked” by data “manipulation”. Therefore, they need to demonstrate that global temperature data has been manipulated to fake the warming. Thus far, all I can see from zdas04 is talk about USHCN which is data for US only. The US represents 2% of the surface area of the planet. Therefore, comments about US data alone are largely irrelevant to the global data sets and do not support their claim.

They also make claims that US scientists are politically motivated (or motivated by politicians) to “fake” the warming. However, this argument would not explain why data sets in other countries also show warming. Even Russia’s own meteorological institute (RIHMI-WDC), a country who has a strong dependency on exporting oil and who’s (extremely influential) president rejects global warming, also shows warming. Any claim of politically motivated tampering there is just laughable.

3) Adjustment to Global Temperature Data Reduces the Warming Trend
If you want to claim “global warming is faked”, then you better talk about global data sets. Unfortunately for those trying to make that claim, when you review global temperature data, you find that adjustments have actually reduced the warming trend. See my post at 26 Jul 16 17:04 that discuss the major adjustment in global data. A great rundown of global temperature adjustments can be found at this post by Zeke Hausfather of BEST and Victor Venema of Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn, here.

So scientists are “faking” the warming by “manipulating” data to reduce the warming trend? This highlights just how nonsensical, confused and ignorant the claim that “global warming is faked” really is.

4) Multiple Different, Independent Metrics All Indicate Warming
Even if we want to ignore all temperature data, there are still many different, independent metrics that can tell us whether the planet is warming or not.
All of these indicate a planet that is warming. All of these are independent of temperature data sets. The planet is warming, plain and simple.

Furthermore, an entirely new temperature data set was create by skeptics for the sole purpose of correcting perceived “issues” with other data sets – Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST). They are independently operated and funded primarily by unrestricted educational grants. However, far from uncovering all the “manipulation” and “faking” of the warming, the group found their results closely matched other temperature data sets. This was enough to turn their founder, Richard Muller, from a skeptic to the mainstream view. It seems when skeptics actual take the time to do the science, rather than cherry pick or come up with non sequitar arguments like other “skeptics” do, they see that the science is actually quite solid.

TL;DR
The claim that “global warming has been faked due to scientists manipulating temperature data” is utterly false for the following reasons:
  • Far from being devious manipulation, USHCN adjustments are done to correct for Time of Observation Biases and are well document and supported. The USHCN matches very closely with the carefully controlled reference network USCRN, indicating the accuracy of the adjustments
  • Complaints about USHCN adjustments, which are unfounded, are also irrelevant. The US represents 2% of the surface and so if someone wants to make claims that “global warming is faked” then they need to talk about global temperature data sets.
  • When you examine global temperature data sets you see that adjustments actually reduce the global temperature trend. So complaints about “faking the warming” are completely wrong.
  • Even if we ignore all temperature data sets that show similar warming trends, including one designed by skeptics to correct “issues” with other data sets, numerous other metrics indicate a warming planet.
Zdas04 is wrong. Tony Heller/Steve Goddard is wrong. There is no evidence of data manipulation to fake global warming. In reality, numerous independent data sets all indicate a similar warming trend. Independent evaluation of those data sets continually demonstrates their accuracy. Of course they could always be improved and scientists and data centers are constantly looking for ways to improve their data and methods. Lastly, and most importantly, adjustments to data have reduce the warming trend.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

it seems "odd" to me that the adjustments are all in one direction ... reducing the warming or not, i don't care, "adjustments" to me imply minor changes/corrections and I'd've expected upwards and downwards corrections.

again, are we overwriting the data with corrections (I thought East Anglica couldn't find the uncorrected data), or are we preserving the raw data ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

On a micro-level (single station moves, for example) the corrections go up and down. So overall corrections are minimal and have no observable trend.

However, for systematic changes (such as going from buckets to ship hulls to buoys or going from PM readings to AM readings) the corrections will work to counter the specific bias (warming in the case of buckets to ship hulls and cooling in the TOBS). These large scale systematic changes do have an observable impact on the trend.

What do you mean "overwriting data with corrections"? Like overwriting raw data with TOBS adjustments? Then no, that isn't done. Hence all the "unadjusted data" trends in the graphs I've linked.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
rconnor,
I read the tripe you linked, and it has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss AGW start another thread. I'm talking about the integrity of the data record.

you said:

Quote:

Zdas04, and the video he linked, make a claim that temperature data is corrupted, by purposeful manipulation by the scientists who produce them, in an attempt to fake the recent warming. They focus on USHCN data to “support” this claim. Here I will outline 4 reasons why their claim is complete nonsense. The TL;DR is point 3 – adjustments to global temperature data reduce the warming trend (good explanation from Zeke Hausfather of BEST and Victor Venema of Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn here). If nothing else, zdas04 needs to address this point. He has failed to do so thus far.
And to that I say, "Shame on you". To say the video "make a claim that temperature data is corrupted, by purposeful manipulation by the scientists who produce them, in an attempt to fake the recent warming." is just crap. The video was very careful to point out differences between PUBLISHED data from the past and PUBLISHED data from the current period and ask the question "how did 70 year old data change from one decade to another?" How did it change? Why did it change? That is the question. As to your purposely obscure questions
1) Adjustments to USHCN Are Required Due to TOBS (and Other Inhomogeneities). The question is not "why is the data manipulated between the instrument and the database", the question is "why was 70 year old data changed 60 years after the fact?". In any other field, "adjustments" are made to data in a manner that allows them to be rolled back. Not in this field. Even necessary modifications are done destructively. Saying anyone who questions this is "dead wrong" does not make it so. What is "published in peer reviewed journals" is not verifiably what is happening. No other field would just accept that "I'm adding 8 degrees to the data because they used to take the readings in the heat of the day and now they take them in the morning, but trust me it is only 8 degrees". The "but trust me" is perfectly acceptable to climate science, but not acceptable in any other discipline.
2) The US Represents 2% of the Planet. I'm not going to address your continued personal attacks on me. What I am going to say is that the U.S. represents the most comprehensive, best maintained data base over any piece of the earth, and if ours is being manipulated, then you can bet long odds that the rest of the world is worse. The U.S. data was presented in the video as examples of data manipulation. It did not ever claim that the U.S. was the world or that you couldn't find similar examples in the datasets of other countries. I know that I have tried to find historical climate data on Botswana and Nigeria to allow me to size evaporation ponds in those countries and the data had very spotty coverage and within a site you were lucky to have a single "daily" record a quarter.
3) Adjustment to Global Temperature Data Reduces the Warming Trend This one feels to me like the store that doubles their prices in mid-June and offers a 30% discount over the 4th of July weekend. The "adjustments" that you are talking about are applied to the so called "raw" data that has already been manipulated in translation from instrument to storage. Since no one can ever reproduce the instrument data because it is destructively edited, there is no way to prove either side of this. And then there is the 50% of the U.S. data set (and 90% of third world datasets) that are simply "Estimated" with no instrument input at all. No chance of a self-fulfilling prophecy here.
4) Multiple Different, Independent Metrics All Indicate Warming Even if that were true, we have a problem with causation.

All of that tedious post is talking about current data and how bloody wonderful it is. I don't think that it is at all wonderful and I have looked at the raw data, but I'm a "Skeptic" so I obviously only cherry pick the results that satisfy my bias. But what happened to the 1930's heat wave that affected all of the northern hemisphere and killed many thousands of people across the globe? What happened to the 1940-1980 cooling that was so broadly reported when the panic-mongers were claiming that the ice age was upon us? Why are they are missing from the data that claims 2015 was the hottest year on record (until 2016 of course) when it was much cooler than 1936?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Zdas04, do you believe temperature data was manipulated to fake the warming globally?

If yes, everything I've written is applicable. If not, then could you please clarify your position.

Also, providing something to supprt your hand waving might be helpful. Your last paragraph is just random, unsupported statements. 1936 was warmer than 2015? Based on what? How can you dismiss all temperature data on one hand and then make comparative statements about temperature data with the other?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
rconnor,
WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO and form your next question based on what he said, not what you want him to have said. He is comparing published data ABOUT THE US from the closing decades of the last century to data concerning the same time period purported to have come from the same data store in 2014-2016. IT IS DIFFERENT. VERY DIFFERENT. He is asking the same question that I've been asking through this entire thread "Why is 70 year old data different in 2015 than it was in 1980?" Simple question. Who got their TARDIS fired up for the purpose of re-extracting data in the 1930's and finding that 12,000 people died in the U.S. in 1936 from, I don't know, polar bear attacks? instead of the strongest heat wave in living memory. That is the question. He went to publications from the closing decades of the 20th century and extracted graphs that were peer reviewed (and then mostly extracted from the peer reviewed literature into popular literature) and compared the graphs to current graphs that had footnotes that pointed to the same source as the 20th century graphs and they were very different. Current graphs do not show the 1930's heat wave. Current graphs do not show a 4 decade cooling period from 1940-1980, but when the climate-alarmists were predicting the Great Lakes never being ice free again that cooling period was "proof" of the claim and today's graphs show a measurable increase during that period. There really has to be time travel involved or else someone is playing very unfunny games.

That "hand waving" that you are so quick to sneer at is DATA FROM THE VIDEO.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I watched a few minutes of the DAMNED VIDEO while researching the speaker. Clearly he's biased and as such I determined that there's no need for me to waste any more time with it, and am amazed that any person with a science education would bother.


RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

60 years ago I measure temperature in the afternoon and store that number in the database. At the time that number is correct. At some point I start measuring temperature in morning and store that number in the database. Neither my old (PM) data or my new (AM) data is wrong but now comparisons between my past points are flawed. My station has not magically had a step change in climate. Without correcting for my change is measurement practice, I have a flawed data set.

With me so far?

I need to correct this flaw. I can either adjust my older PM temperature trends to match my new AM temperature trends or the other way around. It doesn't really impact the overall trend as I'm dealing with anomalies so my baseline will just move up or down with my adjustment.

This is how and why 60 year old data can be adjusted. It's really not that complicated.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

And I wasn't asking Tony Heller/Steve Goddard for his answer, I was asking you. You've said that the purpose of you posting the video was to illustrate the "manipulation" of data. You said the "manipulation" was always in "the same direction". I can assume you insinuated in the warming direction. Is that correct?

So the purpose of you posting the video was to demonstrate that data was "manipulated" to show warming that wasn't real. Is that correct?

You have, in this thread, referred to climate change as a "hoax" on multiple occasions. I presume, then, you feeling that the "manipulation" of temperature data extends to global temperature data. Is that correct?

If so, then my 4 points are completely relevant.

To back peddle and say "I never intending on people connecting the talk about USHCN to global temperature data sets, watch the damn video!" is, to me, disingenuous. But then I could completely misunderstand your position. So I'll ask again, do you feel that temperature data was manipulated to fake warming globally?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
So let me get this straight. Before electronics took over the measurement marketplace, a person physically went to the instrument periodically and read the barometer, thermometer, wind speed, and rain gauge. Those values were then used to populate a database that still exists today. In the 1960's it was decided to systematically change from afternoon readings to morning readings. That change did not require anyone to modify the pre-1960's data until the 2010's. Therefore all graphs between some time in the 1960's and sometime in the 2010's were invalid and the data had to be be destructively edited to provide today's "more accurate" climate record? I call that "today's made up" climate record.

The only way to apply a systematic change to millions of records would be via some sort of computer program. Wonder how they did that to decades-old data? Bet they applied an arbitrary number based on the researcher's feelings of the magnitude of an average. Maybe subtract 6-10 degrees F? Ever hear of a Chinook? I know Bishop DiCaprio had never heard of one, but I was in one once in Calgary that changed the temperature nearly 80F in 8 hours. Wonder how well that event would be captured in an averaging program run 60 years after the fact. IT WOULDN'T. Adjusting history for some plausible misstep is still nonsense. Erasing the 1930's heat wave through a "timing glitch" seems especially egregious since a heat wave by definition is a non-average event and likely had data adjusted far more than the simple change from afternoon to morning readings would recommend.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

why would any scientist overwrite data with corrections ?
and, probably, without recording what those corrections were ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

zdas04,

Let’s return to my example. This time I will show you graphically, using simulated data, the impact of changing my observation times from the PM to the AM.

For the first 50 points, I take my measurement in the afternoon. On point 51, I start taking my measurement in the morning. Here is my data.


To the naked eye, the difference doesn’t seem apparent. And what do y’know, it shows cooling! It must be right!

So, for a while, this break in my station wasn’t noticed. It wasn’t until those corrupt scientists at head office (*spit*) started analyzing the data that they noticed something. They compared my station data against my neighboring station (red), that experience almost the same climate that my station does. The neighbouring station took reading in the morning for all 100 points. Here is the comparison


There is no break in the neighbouring station data and it closely tracks my AM measurements (which are in blue). It also clearly shows the step change in my data from point 50 to 51. Note the trends in my data from 1-50 and 51-100 are similar, and they match the trend of my neighbouring station. The temperature at my station didn’t magically drop in a step change, conveniently exactly when I switch my measurement practice, and then resume a similar trend. This break is not related to climate. This is an error in my data set that requires correcting.

Further analysis is done to calculated the bias introduced by the switch from PM measurements to AM. They chose to correct the PM measurements to the AM measurements which results in lowering the first half of my data. As we’re concerned about anomalies, not absolute values, it doesn’t really matter whether I correct PM to AM or AM to PM because my baseline will move accordingly and my anomalies and trend will be the same regardless of which direction I correct to.

So they apply the corrections and compare, again, against my neighbouring station.


By gods, it shows warming! It must be wrong! Those corrupt scientists must have manipulated the data to create warming that wasn’t there! How did those corrupt scientists take my 60 year old data and turn it into this abomination!

Well, we know that those “corrupt” scientists “manipulated” data to address an error in my data. Nothing nefarious. No “fake” warming. Just corrections to errors in my data.

This is exactly what happens, but on larger scales of course, in USHCN and GHCN. Measurement practices aren’t static, they change. These changes introduce errors that require correcting. These corrections lead to better data. Nowadays, we have much more confidence in the data because we can compare it against very tightly controlled reference stations, USCRN. These comparisons show very little difference between USHCN and USCRN, indicating that the corrections to USHCN are accurate and produce a better data set.

What you and Heller/Goddard have done is looked at flawed data, that showed less warming (therefore you liked it), compared it against corrected data, that showed more warming (therefore you didn’t like), and went, “What happened! My god, they faked this warming!” Honestly, Heller/Goddard rambles on for an hour about adjustments to USHCN (and global data) and never once mentions time of observations. That tells you all you need to know about his “analysis” of the data; he’s not interesting in actually understanding the data, he’s interesting in pushing his conspiracy of data “manipulation” and “faking” of data. The same applies to you.

Instead, you could have (or should have) done your homework, looked through the literature with an open mind, tried to understand the reason for the adjustments and the methods used and realized that the adjustments are required to improve the data. Furthermore, you should have extended your analysis to global temperature data sets. After all, your link includes text that says there is “no doubt that scaremongering about global warming does not stand up to scrutiny.” So both you and your link are attempting to extrapolate USHCN to global warming. This, yet again, makes my 4 points very relevant to this thread and your and Heller’s/Goddard’s claims. Unfortunately for the narrative you are trying to push, global temperature data is corrected to reduce the warming trend. So scientists are “faking” global warming by cooling global temperature data?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I asked you, "do you feel that temperature data was manipulated to fake warming globally?" You responded with, "WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO and form your next question based on what he said, not what you want him to have said."

So I did. He starts by talking about USHCN (which I've addressed in detail) and then talks about global temperature data (which I've addressed in detail). You'll notice his clever trick of talking about land data only and not talking about land and ocean data when discussing adjustments to global data. Likely because it kind of works against his narrative to point out the fact global temperature data for land and ocean has been adjusted to reduce the warming trend.

At 40:58 he puts up his concluding slide that states, "climate data is being manipulated to increase climate alarm". How am I possibly putting words in his mouth? He pretty much said exactly what I asked you to confirm.

So I'll re-state my very relevant point - how has "climate data [been] manipulated to increase climate alarm" when global temperature data (land and ocean) reduced the warming trend?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

4
(OP)
rconnor,
Just stop. Making up data to show that made-up data is A-OK is sad. Like so many times before, I'm going to stop even trying to read your cut-and-paste-fest from here on. If you truly believe that

Quote:

These corrections lead to better data.
then there is simply no way to access a common ground.

"Better data" is one of the most reprehensible concepts in the whole reprehensible field of "Climate Science". Data is data. The only way that it can be made "better" is re-do the data capture with better instruments. Applying a computer model to it says "this dataset didn't really matter in the first place so I'll just multiply times zero and add the number I think it should have been and then call that fabrication "data"".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

2
so, since we only started with about 150 years of data, and except for the united states, very few countries have ever actually gathered any temperature data, and even in the united states, most of the data was flawed, we really have only a tiny amount of actual, good data. Seems reasonable to take that tiny amount of good data, fabricate a whole lot of proxy data, spend millions of dollars creating [un-calibrated] models and use it to predict world wide climate change. And now everything is settled. Sounds like a reasonable approach to me.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Quote (zdas04)

Making up data to show that made-up data is A-OK is sad.
You asked “how can 60 year old data get changed?”. I answered - TOB. You waved your hands and said “but how come no one noticed it before!”. So I provided this illustration to help you understand that sometimes TOB might not be apparent until you review the data closer and compare against neighboring stations. You waved your hands, sloganeered and avoided addressing the issue.

Going from PM measurements to AM measurements introduces a non-climatic step change bias (see Vose et al 2003). A data set that includes a non-climatic step change in the middle of the data set makes any analysis of the trend inaccurate. It's not a difficult concept.

You and Heller/Goddard blindly looked at the old, biased data and went “Ha! No warming! It’s fantastic”. Little did you know, you were looking at a flawed data set. Then you and Heller/Goddard blindly looked at the new, bias-corrected data and went “What! Now there’s warming! It’s faked!”. I tried to explain to you (and then illustrate) the difference between the two. Again, the fact that Heller/Goddard talks about adjustments to USHCN for an hour without mentioning TOB speaks to either his utter ignorance on the subject or his dishonesty. The same applies to you.

Quote (zdas04)

"Better data" is one of the most reprehensible concepts in the whole reprehensible field of "Climate Science". Data is data.
Data has a role – to accurately reflect information about some system. Data that more accurately reflects the information about a system is better than data that less accurately reflects the system. When changes to the recording of data (sensors or recording methodology) change, they introduce non-system changes to the data that reduce how accurately the data reflects the system. Corrections and adjustments are sometimes required to increase or repair the accuracy in these cases. Sensors drift - you correct for that to improve how accurately the data set reflects information about the system. Instruments change - you take that into account to improve how accurately the data set reflects information about the system.

For temperature data that role is to accurately reflect temperature trends. A temperature data series that contains non-climatic biases caused by changes in recording methodology is worse than one that doesn’t. It’s not a difficult concept.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I’d also like to return to your response 29 Jul 16 00:39. My response to it didn’t do it justice, so I’ll be more thorough.

Quote (zdas04)

I read the tripe you linked, and it has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss AGW start another thread. I'm talking about the integrity of the data record.
Heller/Goddard’s concluding slide states, “"climate data is being manipulated to increase climate alarm". Half of his presentation is on global temperature data sets. Both he and you are absolutely trying to make this about AGW. Furthermore, my “tripe” I linked provides a detailed explanation about adjustments to the data record. How does that have “NOTHING to do with the topic at hand”? This feels like an attempt to avoid actually addressing my points. I’m not surprised.

1) Adjustments to USHCN Are Required Due to TOBS (and Other Inhomogeneities)

Quote (zdas04)

the question is "why was 70 year old data changed 60 years after the fact?".
I answered that – TOB adjustments (see Vose et al 2003). Your follow up question of “well, why didn’t anyone see that before?” was addressed in my illustration that TOB can be difficult to spot.

Quote (zdas04)

In any other field, "adjustments" are made to data in a manner that allows them to be rolled back. Not in this field.
You’re making stuff up. They still have the raw data, they can (and do) roll back/adjust changes made (hence the variances between versions and the reason they can compare raw data to adjusted data).

Quote (zdas04)

No other field would just accept that "I'm adding 8 degrees to the data because they used to take the readings in the heat of the day and now they take them in the morning, but trust me it is only 8 degrees".
You’re making stuff up. They don’t go “trust me” they present their adjustments in peer reviewed papers (see Menne et al 2009, Vose et al 2003, Karl et al 1987, etc.). Their methods are tested against controls and other methods from different data sets.

Also, notice that you failed to address the fact USHCN matches very closely with USCRN. Kinda inconvenient for your point I guess…

2) The US Represents 2% of the Planet

Quote (zdas04)

What I am going to say is that the U.S. represents the most comprehensive, best maintained data base over any piece of the earth, and if ours is being manipulated, then you can bet long odds that the rest of the world is worse.
Acknowledging and repeating your global conspiracy but criticize me of pointing it out. Makes sense.

Quote (zdas04)

The U.S. data was presented in the video as examples of data manipulation. It did not ever claim that the U.S. was the world or that you couldn't find similar examples in the datasets of other countries.
To quote you, "WATCH THE DAMN VIDEO". He spends half the talk discussing global temperature data sets. He ignores the total data and cherry picks land only because land only is adjusted such that the warming trend increases. However, the net adjustments (of land and oceans) reduces the warming trend. Kinda inconvenient for your (and his) point I guess…

3) Adjustment to Global Temperature Data Reduces the Warming Trend

Quote (zdas04)

This one feels to me like the store that doubles their prices in mid-June and offers a 30% discount over the 4th of July weekend.
This is nonsensical. When you compare raw data against final data, it shows that adjustments to raw data have reduced the warming trend. You’ll note in the talk, Heller/Goddard talks about global temperature data – but only for land. And yes, the land data is warmed. The ocean data is cooled. The net result is cooling. Kinda inconvenient for your point I guess…

Quote (zdas04)

Since no one can ever reproduce the instrument data because it is destructively edited
You’re making stuff up. See above.

4) Multiple Different, Independent Metrics All Indicate Warming

Quote (zdas04)

Even if that were true, we have a problem with causation.
Now that’s off topic! We aren’t talking about the cause of the warming, we are talking about whether the warming exists or whether it’s the result of “manipulating” data. This is just misdirection (i.e. hand waving while shouting, “look a squirrel!”). Multiple, independent metrics all tell us the planet is warming. That’s consilience of evidence. Kinda inconvenient for your point I guess…

So, you haven’t come close to substantively addressing any of my 4 criticisms. So I’ll repeat my main question - how has "climate data [been] manipulated to increase climate alarm" when global temperature data (land and ocean) reduced the warming trend?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
OK, so that one was short enough to read.

What a stupid argument. If you change data collection methodology, you simply cannot treat the dataset as continuous. You process the PM data as a dataset. You process the AM data as a different set. Then IN A SEPARATE DATASET you process each as a deviation from a base year (different for the AM and PM data) then combining the deviation data has validity. "Fixing" the data in place is obscene.

What you are praising is like taking 1000 data points at 1 record per second and then taking another 1000 data points at 1 record per day and then adding all 2000 points together and dividing them by 2000 to get an "average". The answer is incorrect. To combat that you multiply the daily data by the number of seconds in a day and then increase the divisor accordingly, right? It is still incorrect. If you group the 1000 short-interval data points into a daily average then you have less than one hour of data to average with daily records, but that would make the dataset too short so that is not considered. This field is full of this kind of nonsense that people "fix" with algorithms. It is fine to plot one-reading-per-millennia paleo data as a continuous function with properly geo-reconciled hourly data from satellites, right? What utter tripe.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"What you are praising is like taking 1000 data points at 1 record per second and then taking another 1000 data points at 1 record per day and then adding all 2000 points together and dividing them by 2000 to get an "average". "
"What a stupid argument. "

Ditto.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

applying a correction to PM data to make it consistent with AM data doesn't make it "better", it makes it "consistent" so you can work with the two datasets.

however, the correction is an estimate ... it may be rationally derived, or semi-rationally, or simply made up.

To overwrite PM data with AM adjustments (what I think we're doing) is to me close to heresy (to return to the religious theme we've had running).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

The data is NOT overwritten. The software that does the processing pulls data files, processes the data, and ships out a new, blended data. The original files are still there, otherwise, the software would need to be essentially rewritten every day, which it obviously is not.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

2
For all those that are skeptical of the adjustments to USHCN, did you read Menne et al 2009, Karl et al 1986/7/8 or Vose et al 2003 (full papers available for free online) prior to forming your opinion?

You may treat this question literally or rhetorically.

I’m also not insinuating that you should agree with any or all of those papers, far from it. However, it would certainly be peculiar to be skeptical of the adjustments to USHCN without having read about the adjustments to USHCN. One might say it would be the difference between being skeptical and “skeptical”.

It’s why I find it odd that Heller/Goddard talked for an hour about the results of “manipulations” to USHCN without mentioning TOB, the actual adjustment methods to USHCN or any of the papers that discuss the adjustments.

It’s why I find it odd that zdas04 started a thread about “manipulations” to USHCN without being aware of TOB, the actual adjustment methods or any of the papers that discuss the adjustments.

It’s almost as if they looked at the old data sets, that showed no warming, which they liked, and then looked at the updated data sets, that show warming, which they disliked, had no idea where the difference came from but concluded there must be “manipulation” to “fake” the warming. But certainly a necessary step, if one was actually skeptical (and asked themselves, What Would Galileo Do?), would be to actually review the adjustments (i.e. read the papers), demonstrate where, exactly, the “manipulation” and “faking” are taking place in the current methodology (in doing so, you might need to explain the errors in all the other consilient data sets) and show the results after correcting for the “manipulation” and “faking” in the current methodology. However, this step appears to have been skipped.

One might say it pushes my “credibility button”.

(Note: one notable example of this step NOT being skipped was Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature)

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

One should be skeptical of any data adjustments. Having said that, the proper way to show the data is both adjusted and non-adjusted, with a foot note of why the data needed to be adjusted. This is so the reader understands what one is trying to show.

By showing only the adjusted numbers it looks like something is being hidden, or someone is being dishonest.

Having never met Galileo, I have no idea what he would do.

I actually have more of a problem with drawing conclusions without clear and concise data.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

not sure why the last set of posts got deleted, since they seemed pretty boring, overall.

"One should be skeptical of any data adjustments. Having said that, the proper way to show the data is both adjusted and non-adjusted, with a foot note of why the data needed to be adjusted. This is so the reader understands what one is trying to show."

This is really not that doable. Each point on the typical temperature graph corresponds to thousands of individual values that are blended into that single point. Attached is a TINY portion of the TMAX data from Jan 1 2016, and the salient features are:
> OBS-TIME is all over the place, so this is where the TOB correction as to made, but Jan 1 data consists of over 12000 measurements, so individually notating them would be insane and not particularly readable
> Oddball temperature values all over the place, the likely errors
> I think these measurements are actually in ºC, but other locations and older values are in ºF, and thousands upon thousands of values that have to put into the same units
> Q-FLAG values indicate specific types of quality errors, but there's obviously values that are clearly not correct, but aren't flagged

As mentioned above, 12000+ data values for 1 day. Excel choked on the data file before it even completed Jan 11. So that's 1 million values in 11 days, and about 31 million values in a year. Not all are raw measurements or even temperatures, though; the S-FLAG entries denote specific sources that summary data, and are treated differently from raw data. Attached is the record from 1776, which is obviously more manageable, 1464 entries; I had originally thought they were US, but I forgot that the file came from the Global HCN, and the sources appear to be European.
http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=6...


TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

does that mean some sensors are showing 262 deg, 200 deg, 301 deg ?

are all data in the same scale ? Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, Rankine ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Apparently. But you can see that even in this extremely tiny section, there are already many values that need to be corrected or eliminated. There's no scale where 200 makes sense on Earth in a habitable location

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

and many we don't know the time taken, nor how consistent they are (same time every day ?).

maybe we don't have "data", just a number of numbers ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

"maybe we don't have "data", just a number of numbers ?

Not sure what you mean; the data are labeled as TMAX, other fields not included in the screencap are TMIN, TOBS (which is what I should have filtered for) etc.:


ELEMENT is the element type. There are five core elements as well as a number
of addition elements.

The five core elements are:

PRCP = Precipitation (tenths of mm)
SNOW = Snowfall (mm)
SNWD = Snow depth (mm)
TMAX = Maximum temperature (tenths of degrees C)
TMIN = Minimum temperature (tenths of degrees C)

The other elements are:

ACMC = Average cloudiness midnight to midnight from 30-second
ceilometer data (percent)
ACMH = Average cloudiness midnight to midnight from
manual observations (percent)
ACSC = Average cloudiness sunrise to sunset from 30-second
ceilometer data (percent)
ACSH = Average cloudiness sunrise to sunset from manual
observations (percent)
AWDR = Average daily wind direction (degrees)
AWND = Average daily wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
DAEV = Number of days included in the multiday evaporation
total (MDEV)
DAPR = Number of days included in the multiday precipiation
total (MDPR)
DASF = Number of days included in the multiday snowfall
total (MDSF)
DATN = Number of days included in the multiday minimum temperature
(MDTN)
DATX = Number of days included in the multiday maximum temperature
(MDTX)
DAWM = Number of days included in the multiday wind movement
(MDWM)
DWPR = Number of days with non-zero precipitation included in
multiday precipitation total (MDPR)
EVAP = Evaporation of water from evaporation pan (tenths of mm)
FMTM = Time of fastest mile or fastest 1-minute wind
(hours and minutes, i.e., HHMM)
FRGB = Base of frozen ground layer (cm)
FRGT = Top of frozen ground layer (cm)
FRTH = Thickness of frozen ground layer (cm)
GAHT = Difference between river and gauge height (cm)
MDEV = Multiday evaporation total (tenths of mm; use with DAEV)
MDPR = Multiday precipitation total (tenths of mm; use with DAPR and
DWPR, if available)
MDSF = Multiday snowfall total
MDTN = Multiday minimum temperature (tenths of degrees C; use with
DATN)
MDTX = Multiday maximum temperature (tenths of degress C; use with
DATX)
MDWM = Multiday wind movement (km)
MNPN = Daily minimum temperature of water in an evaporation pan
(tenths of degrees C)
MXPN = Daily maximum temperature of water in an evaporation pan
(tenths of degrees C)
PGTM = Peak gust time (hours and minutes, i.e., HHMM)
PSUN = Daily percent of possible sunshine (percent)
SN*# = Minimum soil temperature (tenths of degrees C)
where * corresponds to a code
for ground cover and # corresponds to a code for soil
depth.

Ground cover codes include the following:
0 = unknown
1 = grass
2 = fallow
3 = bare ground
4 = brome grass
5 = sod
6 = straw multch
7 = grass muck
8 = bare muck

Depth codes include the following:
1 = 5 cm
2 = 10 cm
3 = 20 cm
4 = 50 cm
5 = 100 cm
6 = 150 cm
7 = 180 cm

SX*# = Maximum soil temperature (tenths of degrees C)
where * corresponds to a code for ground cover
and # corresponds to a code for soil depth.
See SN*# for ground cover and depth codes.
TAVG = Average temperature (tenths of degrees C)
[Note that TAVG from source 'S' corresponds
to an average for the period ending at
2400 UTC rather than local midnight]
THIC = Thickness of ice on water (tenths of mm)
TOBS = Temperature at the time of observation (tenths of degrees C)
TSUN = Daily total sunshine (minutes)
WDF1 = Direction of fastest 1-minute wind (degrees)
WDF2 = Direction of fastest 2-minute wind (degrees)
WDF5 = Direction of fastest 5-second wind (degrees)
WDFG = Direction of peak wind gust (degrees)
WDFI = Direction of highest instantaneous wind (degrees)
WDFM = Fastest mile wind direction (degrees)
WDMV = 24-hour wind movement (km)
WESD = Water equivalent of snow on the ground (tenths of mm)
WESF = Water equivalent of snowfall (tenths of mm)
WSF1 = Fastest 1-minute wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
WSF2 = Fastest 2-minute wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
WSF5 = Fastest 5-second wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
WSFG = Peak gust wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
WSFI = Highest instantaneous wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
WSFM = Fastest mile wind speed (tenths of meters per second)
WT** = Weather Type where ** has one of the following values:

01 = Fog, ice fog, or freezing fog (may include heavy fog)
02 = Heavy fog or heaving freezing fog (not always
distinquished from fog)
03 = Thunder
04 = Ice pellets, sleet, snow pellets, or small hail
05 = Hail (may include small hail)
06 = Glaze or rime
07 = Dust, volcanic ash, blowing dust, blowing sand, or
blowing obstruction
08 = Smoke or haze
09 = Blowing or drifting snow
10 = Tornado, waterspout, or funnel cloud
11 = High or damaging winds
12 = Blowing spray
13 = Mist
14 = Drizzle
15 = Freezing drizzle
16 = Rain (may include freezing rain, drizzle, and
freezing drizzle)
17 = Freezing rain
18 = Snow, snow pellets, snow grains, or ice crystals
19 = Unknown source of precipitation
21 = Ground fog
22 = Ice fog or freezing fog

WV** = Weather in the Vicinity where ** has one of the following
values:

01 = Fog, ice fog, or freezing fog (may include heavy fog)
03 = Thunder
07 = Ash, dust, sand, or other blowing obstruction
18 = Snow or ice crystals
20 = Rain or snow shower

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Been there, but I don't remember seeing a weather station.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
Cranky,
They are kind of hard to spot, and over half of the rural stations have been taken out of service (hard to find budget money to maintain a thermometer, it is all going to modelers and politicians) and are being estimated today. So it may or may not still be there.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

I don't believe it would be in town, and if it was, and the amount of changes that have taken place, I would not trust it.

But with crop rotation, it may also not be that trustworthy outside of town either.

Like many rural towns, it has grown. It may not look like it, but adding one trailer park can change the local heat island. With corn prices up like they have been, I would guess that some irrigation has been added around Concordia. So the dynamics of the area have changed without any AGW.

Don't get me wrong, it just might not be anything that someone who is not local can know about.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

my point was how can you rely on such "data" ? the values are all over the place (three obvious errors, well maybe not if the readings are in 1/100th deg), but not all the fields are filled in (like "time of day" which seems to be so critical that we have to correct old data).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

My point is there are many other factors that can change the local temps.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

rb1957,
The legend does say that the values of temperature, such as they are, are in tenths of degrees C.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

yeah, so i stuttered on the "0" ... not nice to hi-light another's afflictions ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

Quote (cranky108)

So the dynamics of the area have changed without any AGW.

That would certainly be a problem if that was the only data source being used, but that single station is being aggregated with many other ones to look at GLOBAL trends. Would you claim the standard atmosphere model is wrong because you measured a different temperature and pressure locally on a given day?

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

2
If you used only a single station, than your confidence factor of your numbers would be very bad. A single station can not be used for any global trends.

Having said that local trends, over several locations can skew the outcome of a regional study. The change from growing wheat to growing corn, with the addition of irrigation can change the results of measurments over several states. (I don't know how much I will admit, but I can see the potential). And all of this would be predicated on the price of corn, which is being grown because of the renewable nature.

On the other hand, many small towns still remain small towns, but have grown just as the nations population has grown.

Many roads that were dirt, and now paved. Many wind breaks in the mid states have been cut down because the USDA is now recommending it, where in the past it was recommending planting wind breaks.

My intent was not to muddle up the discussions, but more to show that there is more in play in the real world than just CO2. That areas have changed, and just can't be assumed to be the same over the years.

Without a strong indicator either way, one could argue it was something else.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

(OP)
Cranky,
The statement

Quote (Cranky108)

to show that there is more in play in the real world than just CO2
deserves a star.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

3
If you torture data long enough, you can make it confess to anything.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

How many stations had trees grow up around them cooling their readings.

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

...or had trees cut down around them...

Skip,

glassesJust traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance!tongue

RE: Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records

The only change in tree population near stations I'm willing to accept are those which prove my biased point, obviously.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close