Reply With Quote
Is it any surprise?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...ndal-ever.html
The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever
New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming
When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.
Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same su ious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.
Related Articles
- Barack Obama's personal battle against climate change
23 Jan 2015- Rise in sea levels is 'faster than we thought'
14 Jan 2015
Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.
One of the first examples of these “adjustments” was exposed in 2007 by the statistician Steve McIntyre, when he discovered a paper published in 1987 by James Hansen, the scientist (later turned fanatical climate activist) who for many years ran Giss. Hansen’s original graph showed temperatures in the Arctic as having been much higher around 1940 than at any time since. But as Homewood reveals in his blog post, “Temperature adjustments transform Arctic history”, Giss has turned this upside down. Arctic temperatures from that time have been lowered so much that that they are now dwarfed by those of the past 20 years.
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.
Is it any surprise?
This is stupid. They were su ious? That is all he has to go by?
Every data point is going be normalized. it is the nature of an infinite types of measuring device. Either it was done correctly or not.
Cool graph.
Too bad the NOAA records have been "corrected." We really don't know what it would look like of made from the recorded data of the past. I assume we would still show the latter years as generally warmer, just not as much.
Why didn't you include the source link, or are you one not to verify the accuracy of data, graphs, etc. and only post what suits your confirmation bias?
Original article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...ear-on-record/
http://climatechange.procon.org/sour...ng-process.pdf
This is BEST explaining their check on the temperature record. You guys realize that the reason for BEST was to check the record. Koch and Exxon signed off.
From their about page:
More from BEST:Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.
From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findingsBerkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.
They checked the you claim is 'su ious.' You guys literally rehash the same refuted arguments over and over again. Are you so stupid and uncreative you cannot do better?
"rehash the same refuted arguments"
... which are paid for by BigCorp, esp its BigCarbon division, esp its Kock Bros department.
Was in a hurry this morning after a sleepless night, stumbled over the GIF and wanted to share. Thanks for finding and sharing the link!
Do you ever fully understand the claims you parrot?
I suggest you look up the definition for "unduly."
Global warming isn't a scam so much as it is a non-event. Lol @ the scale on that animated gif.
I did. Now what?
Exactly what I thought when he posted it. It looks so scary that way lol.
The root word of unduly is due. As in deserving. To not unduly apply something means you applied it where it is due or deserved. IE they did it correctly.
WC is a gibbering idiot.
at using double negatives.
Your parents should ask for their money back.
So guys what is wrong with the scale. The range of actual values goes from -.7 to 1.7 and the range is -1 to 1.5. In your own words explain how the scale is distorting and tell us what you think a better scale would be.
I'll help by giving an example that was used by Poptart in this very discussion.
Here the actual values are between -.5 and .8 yet the scale goes from -5 to 5.
Do you need me to hold you guy's hand here through the critical thinking?
BEST is the one that said 'not unduly,' dip . Try again.
Your parents should ask for their money back.
Does the definition eliminate the idea there was no bias?
Words have meaning. If there was no bias, the word "unduly" wouldn't have been added.
Warmers love their weasel words!
Yep.
It makes everyone happy, and they don't have to quantify any error.
Bias isn't necessarily bad, dumbass. Bias just menas a method of selection. They were biasing towards their normalization where it was due thus the use of the word unduly.
I am biased towards the truth. OH THE HUMANITY.
CC was saying I was using double negatives. My response was only in relation to that statement and your inference is baseless.
BEST was addressing skeptic concerns about undue normalization. They concluded that there was no undue normalization. They also quantified their findings and the degree error involved. Go to their website and their findings page. They have all the raw data their too that you are always whining about not being available as well as their methodology there. They are nothing if not transparent.
So you admit, what you quoted is meaningless.
Good!
Have at it. I don't dispute BESTs analysis.
CC was saying I was using double negatives. My response was only in relation to that statement and your inference is baseless.
BEST was addressing skeptic concerns about undue normalization. They concluded that there was no undue normalization. They also quantified their findings and the degree error involved. Go to their website and their findings page. They have all the raw data their too that you are always whining about not being available as well as their methodology there. They are nothing if not transparent.
Bad data in = bad data out.
Besides, I don't disagree we have been warming. I just disagree with the extent claimed.
How can any of you warmers keep believing the dogma when there is factual data out there like this:
Raw data:
Data after corrections applied:
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph
Again, BEST reviewed all of that already and rejected your assertion. You claim that you respect BEST but when they say that they reviewed GISS and the temperature record and concluded that the normalization was justified or not undue you try and claim that it is meaningless.How can any of you warmers keep believing the dogma when there is factual data out there like this:
Raw data:
Data after corrections applied:
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming - Telegraph
All you are doing here is showing that they are different and waving your hands.
Where did they say normalization was justified?
Are you making things up again?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
