M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
What they do is remove old data as they add new data.
Read the article:
zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-?page=1
- Status
Read the article:
zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-15/research-team-slams-global-warming-data-new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-?page=1
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
When Al Gore sells his beachfront ginormous home and lives in a 400 sq ft cardboard hovel, then I will be more easily persuaded.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That’s not a very scientific basis for answering a scientific question.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
But it does present an amusing and interesting personal sidelight.
Especially when the science is against Al Gore to start with.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
If you think the science is against All Gore, then argue that point, not his real estate choices, which could have several explanations other than his disbelief of GW.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
No, and that’s because it’s all propaganda.
Given that the oil industry is a huge money maker for Russia, my guess is that the entire climate change denial phenomena is part of a Russian disinformation campaign designed to undermine the US as a world leader on this front.
Although Russia did not pull out of the Paris agreement, Putin was delighted that Trump did and made little of the dangers of climate change by saying, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”.
Putin and the Russian oligarchs couldn’t be happier with Trump and the former head of ExxonMobil in power. Given what we now know about Russian cyber warfare & their army of hackers, trolls and bots actively spreading disinformation online, anything that makes Russia happy should immediately be suspect.
‘Don’t worry, be happy’ - Vladimir Putin urges world not to judge Donald Trump over climate deal
telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/dont-worry-happy-vladimir-putin-urges-world-not-judge-donald/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw via @telegraphnews
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Dear Monte,
This is also incorrect. Again, the raw data is still there. And has been, continuously. A history of the data release was written up by New Scientist in 2011.
OK, climate sceptics: here’s the raw data you wanted
Anyone can now view for themselves the raw data that was at the centre of last year’s “climategate” scandal.
Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public.
[links included from original]
Error-correction procedures are used to process the temperature data because of known historical, systemic biases, the greatest of which is the TOBS adjustment, which primarily affected US land surface temperatures. The US historically had a more frontier attitude toward temperature stations, most being voluntary and citizen-manned and monitored, at a time of day most convenient to the station keepers, rather than the science.
Historically, too many stations collected their data in the mid-afternoon, recording the high-low thermometers and then shaking them down. This method successfully captured the day’s high reading, but only if the day had warmed up above the temperature of the previous mid-afternoon, when the thermometer was last shaken down. Otherwise, the day’s actual high was lost, and the higher value from the previous day took its place in the records.
The net result, historically, was average temperature data recorded as higher than the actual.
Statistical methods were used to determine how often this occurred, and by how much the individual station’s values were affected, leading to a correction for this Time of Observation (TOBS) bias. TOBS is no longer needed, except for this historical data. Reporting standards have been raised in the succeeding decades and additional stations created, allowing for more precise modeling of smaller regions, and also allowing for additional error correction.
Most of today’s error correction is due to instruments going bad, and this also occurs far less often due to improvements in the thermometers. Record keeping has also improved. As an example, historically, if a plot of land was repurposed and its weather station moved, the move didn’t always show up in the station’s records. By taking data from nearby stations into account, it’s possible to spot these moves as well.
Every high school student knows they must list potential sources of error at the end of any lab report. Error detection and correction is always on the mind of any researcher, and their standards are enough higher than those of high school students that it’s unlikely any non-specialist is likely to spot an issue they’ve missed.
As ever, Jesse
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Dear Monte,
Please note the report by this research team is a rehashed version of the report I reviewed on an earlier thread, which has since gone missing for reasons I am still waiting to hear. It’s been three weeks, so perhaps I shouldn’t expect a response.
This is not a scientific report.
It’s barely a report at all.
Looking over the report, it’s good to see the pagination has been fixed; footnotes no longer bleed over onto the top of the next page. It still appears to be written in Word, and begins with a list of endorsements. No scientific paper ever does this.
It’s the same list of endorsers with one notable exception. Doiron has replaced Idso among the endorsers, which seems appropriate, as Idso has replaced Christy among the authors. It’s a rehashing of the same poorly edited report, though, complete with the odd capitalizations, e.g., the “Three Lines of Evidence.”
The gist of both is that thermometer data should be discarded when it disagrees with satellite data. It really is that absurd. What’s even more absurd is that this attempt to take advantage of weaker data is not unique. From the article in the OP, we read …
This graph was misleading at a minimum, the product of what Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia termed “Mike’s Nature trick” to “hide the decline.” What Mann did was splice two separate data sets together to create the illusion of spiking temperatures; the graph spliced data sets together without differentiation, hiding the global temperature “decline” shown by the Briffa reconstruction set.
The gist is that thermometer data should be discarded when it disagrees with tree ring data.
The “Briffa reconstruction set” is tree ring data. The “trick” was to replace the tree ring data with thermometer data. The hockey stick controversy in the IPCC report, such as it was, was that this fact wasn’t properly footnoted. It should be noted that the “decline” that showed up in tree ring data was contradicted by both the thermometer data and data from other independent proxies.
Readers are encouraged to come to their own conclusions whether Mr. Birdnow’s polemic in the American Thinker makes its case that “Michael Mann has stepped into a methane-emitting cowpile,” and to further consider what place scatalogical attacks should be granted on a Christian board, or any board that values comity and charity.
As ever, Jesse
T
Theo520
Guest
I may have mistakenly called him a lawyer, but you appear to have not bothered to read the article linked in the OP.
Or are you arguing Mann never had any supporting data for his graphs, fudged or otherwise?
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You still relying entirely on the characterization of this situation as given by O’Sullivan. Until you present supporting evidence from outside the ultra-conservative silo, the accusations cannot be taken seriously.
Of course he had data, and that data has been made public.
T
Theo520
Guest
Stop dismissing any news you don’t like. Yes, the court in CAN is requiring him to supply his documentation, and he is refusing. What do you think there is do dispute about these facts?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You mean the fake news? I will dismiss it.
I don’t doubt the court in Canada is requiring him to supply something, and he is refusing. But what the something is, and whether his refusal is unreasonable is a matter for interpretation, which O’Sullivan has happily provided.
Well, if you give me some real **facts **I might be able to answer.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You mean the fake news? I will dismiss it.
I don’t doubt the court in Canada is requiring him to supply something, and he is refusing. But what the something is, and whether his refusal is unreasonable is a matter for interpretation, which O’Sullivan has happily provided.
Well, if you give me some real **facts **I might be able to answer. The article you cite is also an analysis article with many facts that I agree with, but which are not sufficient to establish your point.
From this latest article you cited, I gather that there was a settlement reached which had agreed-upon conditions. One of those conditions involved the release of some data. It now appears that there is some dispute over whether the data and computer code that is already public is indeed sufficient to satisfy the agreement. Now it appears that Ball is insisting that the data is not acceptable if it does not completely support the hockey stick graph** in his opinion**. So we have a continuing dispute. It is not clear at this point who is right.
L
lao_tzu
Guest
Dear Theo,
This claim is sourced to O’Sullivan, and was clearly never checked. The issue with O’Sullivan is not whether you or anyone else has referred to him as a lawyer, and it’s not even whether he has referred to himself as a lawyer. It’s not that he is “making stuff up” about his legal background. The issue is that he is “making stuff up” about Mann’s suit against Ball.
In particular, he is claiming that the data which has always been available, is actually being withheld. I have used these data myself. Anyone can. And anyone claiming that one cannot, and more, that they are being withheld, is misinformed.
As ever, Jesse
- Status