Australian Politics Forum - Temperature data manipulation exposed

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Environment › Temperature data manipulation exposed

(Moderators: Sir_Bobby, Bobby.)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14

Send Topic

Print

Temperature data manipulation exposed (Read 24088 times)

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17684
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #120 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:21pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

They do it to because they attempt to provide an average temperature for the US in absolute terms, not an anomaly. It does this by ensuring every month has an average for each of its 1218 stations. In an ideal world these stations never change. Unfortunately, stations do become defunct overtime, so USHCN infill by providing an estimate from neighbouring stations.

But that doesn't explain why they do it if merely dropping them would apparently make little difference. It also is a construct, it is not a measurement and it is not data.

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #121 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:36pm

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

They do it to because they attempt to provide an average temperature for the US in absolute terms, not an anomaly. It does this by ensuring every month has an average for each of its 1218 stations. In an ideal world these stations never change. Unfortunately, stations do become defunct overtime, so USHCN infill by providing an estimate from neighbouring stations.

But that doesn't explain why they do it if merely dropping them would apparently make little difference. It also is a construct, it is not a measurement and it is not data.

What happens if you drop a station from Alaska? If you remove all the data from that station you are going to end up with a higher average temperature.

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #122 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:46pm

Does this look like what is happening with the climate data. You bet. Do you know where this came from.
Yep, this is 1984

“Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line.”

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137820
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #123 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:55pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Does this look like what is happening with the climate data. You bet. Do you know where this came from.
Yep, this is 1984

“Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line.”

"Does this look like what is happening with the climate data?"

Yes. Absolutely.

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #124 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Does this look like what is happening with the climate data. You bet. Do you know where this came from.
Yep, this is 1984

“Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line.”

"Does this look like what is happening with the climate data?"

Yes. Absolutely.

For what purpose, greggery? And where is your evidence?

Are you seriously arguing data shouldn't be adjusted to take into account known biases.

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

How about you do a little reading into the biases that exist in the raw data.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137820
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #125 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:43pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Does this look like what is happening with the climate data. You bet. Do you know where this came from.
Yep, this is 1984

“Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line.”

"Does this look like what is happening with the climate data?"

Yes. Absolutely.

And where is your evidence?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #126 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:51pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:43pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:55pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Does this look like what is happening with the climate data. You bet. Do you know where this came from.
Yep, this is 1984

“Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth, where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line.”

"Does this look like what is happening with the climate data?"

Yes. Absolutely.

And where is your evidence?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

So you are suggesting known biases should be ignored.

That's going to work well isn't it. No wonder you don't get the scientific literature.

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137820
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #127 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #128 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

We were in the processes of discussing why I believe there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature.

I referred you to the last IPCC report, but you seem to think it was irrelevant.

The 2nd point I did not make, it is a strawman you've made up. I guess that's easier than having an honest debate.

How about you tell us why you believe there is some massive conspiracy going on.

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137820
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #129 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:04pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

We were in the processes of discussing why I believe there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature.

I referred you to the last IPCC report, but you seem to think it was irrelevant.

The 2nd point I did not make, it is a strawman you've made up. I guess that's easier than having an honest debate.

How about you tell us why you believe there is some massive conspiracy going on.

Who mentioned a conspiracy?

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #130 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:11pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

We were in the processes of discussing why I believe there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature.

I referred you to the last IPCC report, but you seem to think it was irrelevant.

The 2nd point I did not make, it is a strawman you've made up. I guess that's easier than having an honest debate.

How about you tell us why you believe there is some massive conspiracy going on.

Who mentioned a conspiracy?

If you want to draw analogies between the ministry of truth and scientists adjusting raw data to remove known biases, who needs to actually use the word conspiracy, but we all know what you are implying.

So how about rather than playing word games you identify the adjustments you feel are unnecessary.

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137820
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #131 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:12pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

We were in the processes of discussing why I believe there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature.

I referred you to the last IPCC report, but you seem to think it was irrelevant.

I don't remember it saying "the chance of the current warming being a natural variation somewhere in the vicinity of less than 1%."

It seems to be an arbitrary figure that you've made up in order to try and make your argument look a little better.

IP Logged

MOTR

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6646

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #132 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:18pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:12pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

We were in the processes of discussing why I believe there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature.

I referred you to the last IPCC report, but you seem to think it was irrelevant.

I don't remember it saying "the chance of the current warming being a natural variation somewhere in the vicinity of less than 1%."

It seems to be an arbitrary figure that you've made up in order to try and make your argument look a little better.

You do understand virtually certain means greater than 99%.

Quote:

“there is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget.”

“It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

Hunt says Coalition accepts IPCC findings

"What does this mean? It means that we need to do practical things that actually reduce emissions."

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 137820
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #133 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:22pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:02pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:53pm:

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:32pm:

You are sounding more and more like an ideological nutter.

This, coming from someone who pulled "less than 1%" out of thin air (or perhaps it's thick, with CO2).

Someone who also thinks that 134 years of temperature records is enough to understand the planet's 4.5 billion year history.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your criticism seriously.

We were in the processes of discussing why I believe there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature.

I referred you to the last IPCC report, but you seem to think it was irrelevant.

The 2nd point I did not make, it is a strawman you've made up. I guess that's easier than having an honest debate.

How about you tell us why you believe there is some massive conspiracy going on.

Who mentioned a conspiracy?

... but we all know what you are implying.

I can come right out and say it, if you like.

Anyone who believes "there is a less than 1% chance that the climate change we are experiencing is not anthropogenic in nature", when they have already admitted that we only have temperature records going back to 1880, sounds like "an ideological nutter" to me.

Probably sounds that way to a lot of other people too.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17684
Gender: male

male

Re: Temperature data manipulation exposed
Reply #134 - Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:42pm

MOTR wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:36pm:

What happens if you drop a station from Alaska? If you remove all the data from that station you are going to end up with a higher average temperature

Would it matter?

'Gavin Schmidt

Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly anomalies over the United States, for example, you’d just need a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers. Individual stations do get old and break down, since they’re exposed to the elements, but this is just one of things that the NOAA has to deal with. One recent innovation is the set up of a climate reference network alongside the current stations so that they can look for potentially serious issues at the large scale—and they haven’t found any yet.'

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Interviews/schmidt_20100122.php

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 ... 14

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge