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 -

NOAA busted re-writing temperature History.


lost_shaman

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That paper agrees that global warming is real and they're doing just that - quibbling about how much.  So I guess you agree.

Doug

Never said different if you open your eye's and read what I actually write! The Paper says less than 0.2 tenths of a degree due to CO2. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/17/2018 at 4:03 AM, lost_shaman said:

Never said different if you open your eye's and read what I actually write! The Paper says less than 0.2 tenths of a degree due to CO2. 

 

I think I see the real reason Reinhart's paper didn't get published:  there's nothing new in it (at least, from a climate standpoint).  I just ran a regresssion analysis using only one variable - [CO2] - to predict temperature as shown by NOAA and the Keeling dataset.  It showed the same result as that paper.  But it left 97% of the variation unexplained.  So there are no [CO2] interactions considered, no feedback loops, no geographical effects, no nothing except the one variable.  That detail has been known since the 1970s.  Also, lagged effects and autocorrelation are ignored.  So from a climate standpoint, that paper doesn't explain anything new and not very much of what it does explain.

Another thought about the NOAA dataset:  If it's faked, then it wouldn't support Reinhart's conclusions.  So you're in a position of trying to have your cake and eat it too.  IF NOAA's data is faked, then so is Reinhart's paper.  But if Reinhart's paper is true, then NOAA's dataset has to be true, too.  So how do you want it:  Reinhart's paper is true, or NOAA's data isn't?  You can't have it both ways.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2018 at 8:03 PM, Derek Willis said:

I'm not dismissing the data: I am questioning the data.

Firstly, I am not someone who isn't claiming the climate is changing. I am happy to accept the climate is changing - or has changed in recent times - provided there is reliable and comparable data to prove that is the case. I am, however, a skeptic when it comes to the claim that all or most climate change has been brought about by human activity, in the form of burning fossil fuels.

I was simply asking if the same instruments were used to collect the data over the last 130 years. I think that is a reasonable question to ask. It is also reasonable to say that if the same instruments were not used, then without calibration the whole data set cannot be said to be consistent.

My second point was a logical follow on from what Doug said. He said: "One cannot use temperature records as they are". Hence, within that context I am questioning the reliability of the records you mention. I don't see how this is dismissing the data. Are we skeptics not allowed to question data? 

Fair enough, I take the point that you were questioning it.

But with the greatest of respect I think (a) I dealt with your concerns in the very post you were commenting on, and (b) you didn't comment on the other three points I made in the post.

Regarding point (a), I pointed out straightforward ways to help validate the 130 year old records. Regarding (b), does this mean you accept those other points, for examples, that one farm's records show temperatures increasing 2.4 degrees in the last 30 years, or that grape growers are now picking crops a month earlier than they did 34 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2018 at 9:21 PM, lost_shaman said:

You've just discovered that the Climate is not stagnate. Congratulations on your epiphany.

 

??

Come on, you can save the sarcasm for someone else.

So if you accept that the Earth is warming (and keep in mind there are many warming skeptics who don't accept that), the question is the extent to which humans are contributing to it. And if it isn't us, what's the process by which the Earth is warming?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Peter B said:

Fair enough, I take the point that you were questioning it.

But with the greatest of respect I think (a) I dealt with your concerns in the very post you were commenting on, and (b) you didn't comment on the other three points I made in the post.

Regarding point (a), I pointed out straightforward ways to help validate the 130 year old records. Regarding (b), does this mean you accept those other points, for examples, that one farm's records show temperatures increasing 2.4 degrees in the last 30 years, or that grape growers are now picking crops a month earlier than they did 34 years ago?

It isn't a case of whether I accept the data or not. It was Doug who said that, "One cannot use temperature records as they are". In this context - and I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstood his meaning - Doug is saying it was colder in the past than temperature records (such as the ones you mention) indicate. From the climate change lobby point of view, that is very convenient, because it means the temperature difference between back then and now is even greater. My point was that if "one cannot use temperature records as they are", then the data is of no real value at all.

As for the temperature rising 2.4 degrees over the last 30 years, I am not in a position to say if the data is valid or not. Doug provided a list of reasons why measurements taken over a period might not be acceptable. If the conditions under which each measurement was taken were identical, then I am happy to accept the data. Meteorological data is gathered using the modern equivalent of a Stephenson's Screen, which as far as possible maintains the conditions. Did the winegrowers have a similar set up? Or did someone simply come along each day and take a look at the thermometer?

In this context I am reminded of the university tutorials I attended many years ago in which we physics students were shown how to take accurate data. Over a period of an hour we had to measure the voltage of a battery as it discharged. To begin with we were given basic volt meters (this was in the days before they were digital) and took measurements every five minutes. At the end, we compared our data. There was quite a spread. This was because the volt meters hadn't been calibrated against a standard, and none of us thought much about the parallax between the needle and the scale. We were then given some high quality meters that had "mirror scales" to eliminate the parallax, and had been calibrated. That time, our data was almost identical. (Students today have no idea how lucky they are to have digital meters!)

As I mentioned in a previous post, I do not deny climate change. Where I am sitting now was under a kilometer of ice 15,000 years ago, so the climate does change! My position is that I am not convinced - or even partially persuaded - that the warming of the past few decades is the result of burning fossil fuels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

It isn't a case of whether I accept the data or not. It was Doug who said that, "One cannot use temperature records as they are". In this context - and I am sure he will correct me if I misunderstood his meaning - Doug is saying it was colder in the past than temperature records (such as the ones you mention) indicate. From the climate change lobby point of view, that is very convenient, because it means the temperature difference between back then and now is even greater. My point was that if "one cannot use temperature records as they are", then the data is of no real value at all.

As for the temperature rising 2.4 degrees over the last 30 years, I am not in a position to say if the data is valid or not. Doug provided a list of reasons why measurements taken over a period might not be acceptable. If the conditions under which each measurement was taken were identical, then I am happy to accept the data. Meteorological data is gathered using the modern equivalent of a Stephenson's Screen, which as far as possible maintains the conditions. Did the winegrowers have a similar set up? Or did someone simply come along each day and take a look at the thermometer?

In this context I am reminded of the university tutorials I attended many years ago in which we physics students were shown how to take accurate data. Over a period of an hour we had to measure the voltage of a battery as it discharged. To begin with we were given basic volt meters (this was in the days before they were digital) and took measurements every five minutes. At the end, we compared our data. There was quite a spread. This was because the volt meters hadn't been calibrated against a standard, and none of us thought much about the parallax between the needle and the scale. We were then given some high quality meters that had "mirror scales" to eliminate the parallax, and had been calibrated. That time, our data was almost identical. (Students today have no idea how lucky they are to have digital meters!)

As I mentioned in a previous post, I do not deny climate change. Where I am sitting now was under a kilometer of ice 15,000 years ago, so the climate does change! My position is that I am not convinced - or even partially persuaded - that the warming of the past few decades is the result of burning fossil fuels.

ANY data needs to be cleaned up before it can be used.  There's a disclaimer in one of my stat books that says, "Up to now you have been using datasets that have been cleaned up.  Mistakes have been removed and problems eliminated.  From now on, this is not the case.  You will be using real data with all of its attendant problems."

I do not know about Australia's weather.  It was very likely different than what it is today.  Some places get warmer while others get colder.  Climate shifts of the past have been separated from the same shift in another part of the world, sometimes by decades.  The Last Glacial Maximum ended at least twenty years earlier in the Southern Hemsipshere than it did in the Northern.  What I mean by the climate getting warmer is that it is getting warmer in Oklahoma and that correlates very well with the global average.

Those vineyard records could be a great asset to climate science, but once again, the data has to be checked over carefully before fitting it into a global (or even local) model.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2018 at 6:14 AM, Peter B said:

So if you accept that the Earth is warming (and keep in mind there are many warming skeptics who don't accept that), the question is the extent to which humans are contributing to it. And if it isn't us, what's the process by which the Earth is warming?

That would be nice to know right? Instead we are told the "Science is settled" and we must simply accept what we are told by questionable characters such as those at East Anglica and NOAA and their apologists.

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2018 at 8:55 AM, Doug1o29 said:

Another thought about the NOAA dataset:  If it's faked, then it wouldn't support Reinhart's conclusions.  So you're in a position of trying to have your cake and eat it too.  IF NOAA's data is faked, then so is Reinhart's paper.  But if Reinhart's paper is true, then NOAA's dataset has to be true, too.  So how do you want it:  Reinhart's paper is true, or NOAA's data isn't?  You can't have it both ways.

What on Earth are you talking about here? 

NOAA data is being manipulated on a regular basis. How does that have anything to do with what Reinhart's Paper says about CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere? 

Pro tip... It doesn't Doug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOAA is altering Temperature Data to cool the Past and make recent years look like they are much hotter! We might think that in this day and age we would have more real data than we had in the past. That simply is not true today we have less real data and NOAA is using computer models to "make up" temperature data that they are not collecting with real temperature measurements!  

NOAA Data Tampering Approaching 2.5 Degrees

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we account for physical photos and satellite imagery showing glacial recession?

https://newatlas.com/before-after-photos-glaciers-climate-change/49143/

Ive watched over the decades in my neck of the woods snow levels rising consistantly. Ive seen two ski hills permantely shut down due to lack of snow. The third hill will have a couple good years then get hit with a minimal snow base one year..which seems to be reoccurring more and more

how about changing animal migrations ect

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/climate-change-species-migration-disease/

?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your link is simply to a Bing search with the title of this topic. I assume the first result is what you're going for. Which leads one to a news site. Which leads one to "The Deplorable Climate Science Blog".

Again, this is all an assumption that was the location you were trying to reference. Given such constraints, I could Google a phrase claiming the alternative for "proof" of the opposite conclusion. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

~

 

 

[00.05:29]

 

 
Quote

 

Sep 17, 2017 - Uploaded by CNN

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson says lawmakers and the media cherry pick scientific papers to reinforce ...

~

 

~

He sounds hopping mad he does ...

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugh. Not Neil Tyson. My least favorite scientific "icon".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Socks Junior said:

Ugh. Not Neil Tyson. My least favorite scientific "icon".

Really?

I'd have to go with Phil Plait, but only because if he says "Holy Haleakala!" one more time, I'm going to throw my TV out of the window, and keep kicking it down the street until I die of exhaustion... :wacko:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What on Earth are you talking about here? 

NOAA data is being manipulated on a regular basis. How does that have anything to do with what Reinhart's Paper says about CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere? 

Pro tip... It doesn't Doug.

I'm talking about science.  Sorry if I took that turn a bit too fast for you.

If Reinhart is claiming that past temperature increases are not supported by CO2 increases, then he has to have done  a regression to establish that.  But the data he used is NOAA's and if that data were faked, it wouldn't support him.

NOAA does manipulate its data.  That's what it's called when you correct for things like bias and mistakes.  That's not the same as deliberately misrepresenting what the science is saying.  Are you getting confused by definitions?

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If Reinhart is claiming that past temperature increases are not supported by CO2 increases, then he has to have done  a regression to establish that.  But the data he used is NOAA's and if that data were faked, it wouldn't support him.

Why are you consistently wrong Doug? 

Reinhart cites "A. Rorsch and P.A. Ziegler, Energy and Environment 24, 551,559 (2013)" 

Please note that is NOT NOAA! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Are you getting confused by definitions?

Doug

That's a bit rich coming from someone who has a somewhat unique definition of "logarithm".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Socks Junior said:

Your link is simply to a Bing search with the title of this topic. I assume the first result is what you're going for. Which leads one to a news site. Which leads one to "The Deplorable Climate Science Blog".

Again, this is all an assumption that was the location you were trying to reference. Given such constraints,

 

Sorry, I could not find the direct link with Google. So I had to resort to Bing to find the article and I'm not familiar with Bing. Maybe Google that I normally use has resorted to censoring "contrarian" articles which is Crazy and Sad. 

Quote

I could Google a phrase claiming the alternative for "proof" of the opposite conclusion. 

Do that! It would show the bias I'm saying I just experienced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are referring to this - written by someone who, on being shocked to see the Sun rise in the morning, announces "aha!  Proof NASA/NOAA/MetO are manipulating the data, global warming is a hoax, and I am the most wonderfully brilliant person who ever lived". 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/21/delingpole-noaa-2-5-degrees-f-data-tampering-science-doesnt-get-any-worse-than-this


If all the glaciers and ice caps in the world melted completely he would still be be claiming it was all a big scam (involving millions of people over 150 years).... ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, I did like this bit:  " they are turning an 80 year cooling trend into a warming trend "

:lol::lol::lol:
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Why are you consistently wrong Doug? 

Reinhart cites "A. Rorsch and P.A. Ziegler, Energy and Environment 24, 551,559 (2013)" 

Please note that is NOT NOAA! 

Where does the temperature data come from?  ;) 

Bearing in mind that all temp data must be considered inaccurate given that the past 3 years were really the coldest in at least 80 years (per your other thread on this same silly subject)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Where does the temperature data come from?  ;) 

Ask Doug? The Reinhart Paper is quantifying CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere. There he is using HITRAN data and some Physics calculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Essan said:

Bearing in mind that all temp data must be considered inaccurate given that the past 3 years were really the coldest in at least 80 years (per your other thread on this same silly subject)

Ask Doug how many Temperature records we broke in Texas and Oklahoma in the first half of August this year (typically the hottest two weeks of the year)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2018 at 0:04 AM, lost_shaman said:

That would be nice to know right? Instead we are told the "Science is settled" and we must simply accept what we are told by questionable characters such as those at East Anglica and NOAA and their apologists.

Why not just look it up?  People have put numbers on it.  I think it's on the order of 60% of warming since 1910 is associated with human activities.  That includes burning of fossil fuels and CO2 released by timber cutting, land clearing, grazing and agricultural operations.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Why are you consistently wrong Doug? 

Reinhart cites "A. Rorsch and P.A. Ziegler, Energy and Environment 24, 551,559 (2013)" 

Please note that is NOT NOAA! 

Here is the article he referenced:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.551

It is a nine-page article.  There are no datasets in it.  Don't you ever read your articles before you post them?

Doug

  • Like 1
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.