Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Global Warming Hoax? Scientist Feud ERUPTS!


Jungleboogie

Recommended Posts

300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data

Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

NOAA scientists upwardly adjusted temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record.

The NOAA study in dispute claims the scientists found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming. They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming the temperature record from 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale.”

“As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” wrote climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of the libertarian Cato Institute on the science blog, Watt's Up With That. “Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.c...l-warming-data/

I'm sure the global warming hoax crowd will have a field day with this major malfunction on the part of the NOAA. This just looks BRUTAL.

Edited by Jungleboogie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you cite this from another source? And also show us the actual data that you state has solely come from ship engine intakes (excuse my mirth..) and the graph showing how the corrections amended the forecasts. Because all roads on this kerfuffle lead back to the 'Daily Caller', and forgive me for not getting too convinced by someone who uses capitals and exclamation marks as debate...

BTW, don't get me wrong.. I do believe there are some issues that NOAA haven't properly addressed, but this isn't one of them..

And don't get me doubly wrong - I'm comprehensively satisfied that GW is real. NOAA do not control the incredible amount of monitoring and research done all around the world, you know... I realise that many merkans believe the US is the entire world, but some of us do live in the quite large area outside of that wunnerful country...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This piece criticizes some of the data used by the NOAA. (Including using adjusted engine intake air temperature data)

http://wattsupwithth...atus-after-all/

This piece is a bit complicated, but as I understand it, the NOAA has applied new rules to data analysis. This manipulates older data (circa 1915) to be cooler and newer data to be hotter. (Thus exaggerating the 'global warming' trend)

http://wattsupwithth...ting-past-data/

The NOAA is not making this easy. The study is nowhere on their site. http://www.noaa.gov/ The only place I've found it published is at sciencemag.org

But of course one needs a subscription :rolleyes:

Anyone lend a hand getting this study? The study is called "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus". The lead researcher is Richard Karl. You would think NOAA would post a copy on their own website.

Basically, in a nutshell, the NOAA is taking existing data, putting it through their new meatgrinder analysis, and now it contradicts the 'global warming hiatus data' from the IPCC.

In layman's terms:

Bob: "Phew, it's hot in here"

Bill: "Here Bob, put this winter parka on"

Bob: "Sure, thanks Bill"

.....

.....

Bob: "Wow, it's even hotterer in here"

Edited by Jungleboogie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also show us the actual data that you state has solely come from ship engine intakes

I never stated that. The scientists in the article stated that. Solely is your word. I don't see it in the article. Clarity ChrLzs! :sm

Ahh, finally got it, here's one of the relevant passages:

Second, there was a large change in ship observations (i.e., from buckets to engine intake thermometers) that

peaked immediately prior to World War II. The previous version of ERSST assumed that no ship corrections were

necessary after this time, but recently improved metadata reveal that some ships continued to take bucket obser-

vations even up to the present day. Therefore, one of the improvements to ERSST version 4 is extending the ship

-bias correction to the present, based on information derived from comparisons with night marine air temperatures.

Full text:

http://sciences.blog...s-de-hiatus.pdf

Edited by Jungleboogie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Its the same old question, are data adjustments necessary to get the real trend in the data ? The answer is an absolutely simple yes no matter how many time you ask it.

Br Cornelius

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the same old question, are data adjustments necessary to get the real trend in the data ? The answer is an absolutely simple yes no matter how many time you ask it.

Br Cornelius

Corrupt data should be discarded, not adjusted to fit the theory.

If bucket observations and engine intake data are unreliable, then discard them. Climatological buoys with sensor arrays should be the standard for surface sea temperatures.

This NOAA junk science is nothing but rubbish.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 Scientists Want NOAA To Stop Hiding Its Global Warming Data

Read more: http://dailycaller.c...l-warming-data/

1. NOAA isn't hiding its data. Surface temperature data is available here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

In case you don't believe NOAA, here is a similar set from Hadley-Crutcher4: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/ There are many different datasets on this list. You really need to know what you're looking for to find it. But it's on there.

2. Sea Surface Temperatures used in the above are determined from satellite readings, not ship water intakes.

3. The ocean has many layers. Ship intakes sample only one of them. This study addresses only part of the ocean and a small part at that. I would like to see what findings apply to the rest of the ocean/world before jumping to conclusions.

4. Ship intake data was adjusted to match data obtained from weather buoys. The people who are objecting to adjusting ship intake data are saying the buoys are wrong. On what basis are they saying that? Do they mean to imply that the buoy data should be adjusted to match the ship data? Why? How is that any better?

5. Data sources are listed in the article. All anyone has to do is look them up.

6. The "hiatus" shows up in tree ring records, which are land surface temps, not sea temps. So at least part of the "hiatus" was real. The "disappearance" of the "hiatus" is due only to averaging and only tells part of the story: if you have one foot frozen in a block of ice and another in a kettle of boiling water, you are comfortable on average. Averages do not always tell the whole story.

Doug

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. NOAA isn't hiding its data. Surface temperature data is available here: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

In case you don't believe NOAA, here is a similar set from Hadley-Crutcher4: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/ There are many different datasets on this list. You really need to know what you're looking for to find it. But it's on there.

2. Sea Surface Temperatures used in the above are determined from satellite readings, not ship water intakes.

3. The ocean has many layers. Ship intakes sample only one of them. This study addresses only part of the ocean and a small part at that. I would like to see what findings apply to the rest of the ocean/world before jumping to conclusions.

4. Ship intake data was adjusted to match data obtained from weather buoys. The people who are objecting to adjusting ship intake data are saying the buoys are wrong. On what basis are they saying that? Do they mean to imply that the buoy data should be adjusted to match the ship data? Why? How is that any better?

5. Data sources are listed in the article. All anyone has to do is look them up.

6. The "hiatus" shows up in tree ring records, which are land surface temps, not sea temps. So at least part of the "hiatus" was real. The "disappearance" of the "hiatus" is due only to averaging and only tells part of the story: if you have one foot frozen in a block of ice and another in a kettle of boiling water, you are comfortable on average. Averages do not always tell the whole story.

Doug

You have to ruin all intrigue with thingy called facts, don't you...

BTW, just out of curiosity: do civil/military subs take samples on different depths, and if yes, do these samples enter databases (after declassification for mil. subs, of course)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to ruin all intrigue with thingy called facts, don't you...

BTW, just out of curiosity: do civil/military subs take samples on different depths, and if yes, do these samples enter databases (after declassification for mil. subs, of course)?

Don't know the answer to that. Arctic ice thicknesses are determined by military subs on routine patrol. It's not the best data and is strongly skewed spatially, requiring spatial correction, but it is pretty reliable. I don't know where to find ice thickness data right off, but with some searching I could probably do it.

If you're looking for data, try NCDC's paleoclimate database. LOTS and LOTS of numbers. No analysis. You'll have to work up your own.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know the answer to that. Arctic ice thicknesses are determined by military subs on routine patrol. It's not the best data and is strongly skewed spatially, requiring spatial correction, but it is pretty reliable. I don't know where to find ice thickness data right off, but with some searching I could probably do it.

If you're looking for data, try NCDC's paleoclimate database. LOTS and LOTS of numbers. No analysis. You'll have to work up your own.

Doug

I was thinking more of the Argo type measurements prior 2000s. Of course, subs didn't submerged to those depths of Argo, nevertheless...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never stated that. The scientists in the article stated that. Solely is your word. I don't see it in the article. Clarity ChrLzs! :sm

It was 'solely' in the sense that it was the ONLY factor you quoted....

I stand by the use of the term - you're the one who just gave that as the 'reason'. And frankly, it is a ridiculous reason. First up, intake thermometers ARE (of course) calibrated to take into account their location and any heat contamination. Sure, there may be issues and on investigation, some ships may well have poorly operating devices that need re-calibrating. That's why NOAA should (and largely does) use many cross-checkable sources for their data collection. I have heard some criticisms of their non-use of some satellite data, however satellite info is only a recent development, and is not all that useful for the sort of time periods in question.

It appears that some of that cross-checking did reveal issues in the data (refer Doug's answer), so what should they have done - just kept quiet? Other researchers will indeed look at what they have done, but that takes time. The fact that 300 (alleged) scientists signed a knee-jerk letter is an indication, if anything, that those scientists (if they are..) are the type that leap quickly to conclusions, rather than write peer reviewable reports showing the actual errors or problems in the analysis in detail. When I see a full dissertation on those alleged problems, I might take this seriously.

But as it stands it looks like some website somewhere asked their readers to nominate themselves as self appointed GW experts/scientists and sign a letter (that was typed out on tinfoil...). I'd also be interested to hear the names of the most renowned 'scientists' on that list of 300. Does the list of names exist somewhere?

Edited by ChrLzs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was 'solely' in the sense that it was the ONLY factor you quoted....I stand by the use of the term - you're the one who just gave that as the 'reason'.

Wrong. I said 'including', the main reason I mentioned it was as an example since it is easier to understand for the average reader. My exact quote: "Including using adjusted engine intake air temperature data"

If your logic is so damaged that you substitute 'solely' when I clearly stated 'including', well I can't help ya there bud.

First up, intake thermometers ARE (of course) calibrated to take into account their location and any heat contamination.

Wrong. Intake thermometer readings are all over the map, even when calibrated. Here is a detailed overview of studies showing just how varied: (Pg 686-687 3.1 Bucket-intake temperature comparisons)

http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf

Sure, there may be issues and on investigation, some ships may well have poorly operating devices that need re-calibrating.

Correct! Unless the NOAA possesses a TARDIS, they do not know the variance of off-calibration equipment from the past 70 years. On this, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

That's why NOAA should (and largely does) use many cross-checkable sources for their data collection.

Hopefully most are more accurate than 70 year old ship data.

I have heard some criticisms of their non-use of some satellite data, however satellite info is only a recent development

What are you even going on about here? Do you know anything about sst data taken in situ? It sounds like you don't.

Satellite sst data only includes the 'skin' of the ocean, depth = ~1mm + wave/trough variance.

Here's a primer for SST data from NASA: http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceans/science-focus/modis/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp.shtml

When I see a full dissertation on those alleged problems, I might take this seriously.

If you can't comprehend the difference between in situ and satellite sst, a full dissertation is the least of your problems.

But as it stands it looks like some website somewhere asked their readers to nominate themselves as self appointed GW experts/scientists and sign a letter (that was typed out on tinfoil...). I'd also be interested to hear the names of the most renowned 'scientists' on that list of 300. Does the list of names exist somewhere?

I agree, going to have to dig that up somewhere, I'd be interested in seeing it too. I'll try to find and post it later as time permits.

Edited by Jungleboogie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. NOAA isn't hiding its data. Surface temperature data is available here: http://data.giss.nas...GLB.Ts dSST.txt

In case you don't believe NOAA, here is a similar set from Hadley-Crutcher4: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut4/ There are many different datasets on this list. You really need to know what you're looking for to find it. But it's on there.

2. Sea Surface Temperatures used in the above are determined from satellite readings, not ship water intakes.

3. The ocean has many layers. Ship intakes sample only one of them. This study addresses only part of the ocean and a small part at that. I would like to see what findings apply to the rest of the ocean/world before jumping to conclusions.

4. Ship intake data was adjusted to match data obtained from weather buoys. The people who are objecting to adjusting ship intake data are saying the buoys are wrong. On what basis are they saying that? Do they mean to imply that the buoy data should be adjusted to match the ship data? Why? How is that any better?

5. Data sources are listed in the article. All anyone has to do is look them up.

6. The "hiatus" shows up in tree ring records, which are land surface temps, not sea temps. So at least part of the "hiatus" was real. The "disappearance" of the "hiatus" is due only to averaging and only tells part of the story: if you have one foot frozen in a block of ice and another in a kettle of boiling water, you are comfortable on average. Averages do not always tell the whole story.

Doug

I definitely prefer satellite sst data to in situ. Especially when the NOAA rejects Hadley and starts manipulating in situ data from 70 years ago in order to suddenly proclaim there is no global warming hiatus.

The variation of bucket and even calibrated engine intake temperature data makes it dubious at best. Check the variations in the study overview I posted for ChrLzs above.

I'll have to examine the buoy data in greater detail to see exactly what they are going on about, besides that I agree with pretty much everything you stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. I said 'including', the main reason I mentioned it was as an example since it is easier to understand for the average reader. My exact quote: "Including using adjusted engine intake air temperature data"

??????

YES, you did in the post that FOLLOWED mine. For chrissake READ YOUR ORIGINAL POST. That's what I responded too.

Talk about changing goalposts... I expect an apology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall reading a Scientific American article back in the 1980s, maybe even the 1970s that questioned the validity of temperature readings from cooling water intakes and buckets hauled aboard on a number of grounds.

That said, on the topic of global warming I have about as much confidence in any politically aligned organisation as I have in Answers in Genesis on the topics of geology or evolutionary biology. I expect all of them to lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Br Cornelius

Corrupt data should be discarded, not adjusted to fit the theory.

If bucket observations and engine intake data are unreliable, then discard them. Climatological buoys with sensor arrays should be the standard for surface sea temperatures.

This NOAA junk science is nothing but rubbish.

All data has biases - its that simple.

If you understand the bias and can account for it - then the data is still good. There is a consistent cool bias in the bucket readings - but since they make up almost all of the dataset and the magnitude of the bias is well described a valid adjustment can be made. The fact that some subset of the bucket data is at variance to the described bias simply means that there is a small residual bias in the adjusted data, but the overall dataset is still more accurate than without that data..

The more data you have the more accurate your conclusions. It is entirely appropriate to use the bucket data and to adjust it since the magnitude and sign of the bias is well understood. Almost all data has some bias and the difference between good and bad science is accounting for it.

The paper you put so much stock in draws exactly the same conclusions:

Accurate temperatures can be obtained with either the bucket or intake method. However, measurements cannot be expected to be of high accuracy or precision when obtained by untrained sailors using poorly-calibrated, low-resolution thermometers. This is not of major concern with regards the accuracy of large-scale area-average SST records since random and systematic errors associated with individual observations and instruments tend to cancel out across largenumbers of observations.

http://www.ocean-sci...-9-683-2013.pdf

As for your preferring satellite data compared to actual ocean measurements, that shows an ignorance of the massive and far more complex biases embodied within the satellite records - which all have to be adjusted for - yielding nothing more than a proxy for the real temperature at the surface.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely prefer satellite sst data to in situ.

Do you know how satellite temperatures are obtained? Satellites cannot measure surface temperatures directly. All they can measure is the light they can "see" from orbit. There are two ways to process this light to obtain temperature ESTIMATES (ALL satellite-derived temperatures are ESTIMATES.).

1. One can use theoretical physics to predict how much of a given wavelength should be emitted at a given temperature, then use light measurements to determine the temperature (The "black body" temperature.). Because I am not a physicist and don't really trust stuff I can't replicate, I use the other method.

2. One can measure signal intensity at a variety of wavelengths around a given ground (or sea) station as X-values in a regression model. Then use the temperature as measured at that station as the Y-value. There are 3000 stations in the US and many more scattered around the world. Do this at each station. Then, using that data, compute a prediction equation. Then use satellite measurements and that equation to predict temperatures at millions of places across the surface of the earth. So satellite data are really based on ground (in situ) data.

Especially when the NOAA rejects Hadley and starts manipulating in situ data from 70 years ago in order to suddenly proclaim there is no global warming hiatus.

Only about 20% of all the weather observations ever taken are used in NOAA's averages. NOAA is working on assimilating the rest, but it is a time-consuming and mind-numbing task. For the US, you can access this data here: http://www.ncdc.noaa..._target1=Next > Here is a link to a typical month's data for Arkansas (January 1909): http://www1.ncdc.noa...F9D1E5F3499.pdf Look at pages 5 and 6. And that's just one state for one month. As old data is added to the database, changes (usually minor) in the averages will occur.

The variation of bucket and even calibrated engine intake temperature data makes it dubious at best. Check the variations in the study overview I posted for ChrLzs above.

I'll have to examine the buoy data in greater detail to see exactly what they are going on about, besides that I agree with pretty much everything you stated.

A study with as much import as this one has will be checked by many other studies. Debunking one method or the other will make somebody's career. It will get done. In the meantime, let's not jump to conclusions.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely prefer satellite sst data to in situ. Especially when the NOAA rejects Hadley and starts manipulating in situ data from 70 years ago in order to suddenly proclaim there is no global warming hiatus.

Unless you have an atmospheric correction model the scientific community haven't seen yet. I would be very careful when saying satellite measurements should be preferred.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regarding the NOAA paper. It is a lot of rubbish. So yes I would not doubt over 300 scientists are dismissing it.

Edited by BFB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But regarding the NOAA paper. It is a lot of rubbish. So yes I would not doubt over 300 scientists are dismissing it.

Could you be specific and point out the very worst part that is rubbish? I'm not being argumentative, just time-challenged and it seems you have read it all..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you be specific and point out the very worst part that is rubbish? I'm not being argumentative, just time-challenged and it seems you have read it all..

Because other scientists have done(or tried) exactly the same as Karl et al. However they had very different conclusion. Karl et al. added 0.12C to all buoys without given a justifiable reason in my opinion. All their data have inherent problems. If you want me to elaborate, please don't hesitate to ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry just saw you actually asked me what the worst part about their study was.

It's their adjustment based on their comparison of NMAT records from the HadNMAT2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This piece criticizes some of the data used by the NOAA. (Including using adjusted engine intake air temperature data)

http://wattsupwithth...atus-after-all/

This piece is a bit complicated, but as I understand it, the NOAA has applied new rules to data analysis. This manipulates older data (circa 1915) to be cooler and newer data to be hotter. (Thus exaggerating the 'global warming' trend)

http://wattsupwithth...ting-past-data/

The NOAA is not making this easy. The study is nowhere on their site. http://www.noaa.gov/ The only place I've found it published is at sciencemag.org

But of course one needs a subscription :rolleyes:

Anyone lend a hand getting this study? The study is called "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus". The lead researcher is Richard Karl. You would think NOAA would post a copy on their own website.

Basically, in a nutshell, the NOAA is taking existing data, putting it through their new meatgrinder analysis, and now it contradicts the 'global warming hiatus data' from the IPCC.

In layman's terms:

Bob: "Phew, it's hot in here"

Bill: "Here Bob, put this winter parka on"

Bob: "Sure, thanks Bill"

.....

.....

Bob: "Wow, it's even hotterer in here"

I've given up trying to reason with the unreasonable. Anyone that says the science is "settled" is not really a scientist.

The actual bottom line is all about the redistribution of wealth. Developed nations are due to transfer trillions of dollars to undeveloped nations to help them change to non-fossil fuels. How much of that money will end up helping the undeveloped nations? I wonder.

This has to be accomplished by 2030. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E

"Pay up, and up, and up..."

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427295/pay-up-say-developing-nations-climate-talks-paris

That much money makes the recipients blind and deaf to the questions about their "settled science."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.