The scandal of fiddled global warming data (US actually cooling since 1930s)

[libertyjam]

Tell us whose data we should actually trust.

I'm listening.

stevengoddard says:
June 23, 2014 at 9:51 am

There are several things which can affect temperature readings, including UHI affects which cause recent readings to be too warm. Once they start altering data based on subjective judgements, they data is corrupted by confirmation bias, or worse.

The raw data should be presented as well as the adjusted data. Adjusted data should be presented as adjusted data, not "actual" temps. Then methodology and how software adjustments were done should be fully disclosed. They pretend they are but they are not.

As PRB is on ignore this will be my only and last response to him.

 

[ravedown]

Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours'

"climate justice?" im still trying to figure out what the Orwellian horseshit this is? not sure if i should laugh or be worried.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Goddard did admit he was wrong about Arctic Ice not melting: http://www.desmogblog.com/steven-goddard

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in The Register where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement.

Steven Goddard Published an article titled “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered” in The Register. Goddard claimed that the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of the extent of Arctic Sea Ice was wrong. However, on August 25, Goddard retracted his claim, saying that “… it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year - just as NSIDC had stated.”

Joe Romm at ClimateProgress reported that the retraction may have been too late, as Goddard’s article had already received over 70 references by blogs and websites skeptical of man-made climate change.

Not sure if we can trust his data any better.

I was doing some more reading on the USGS site and one of the "adjustments" made to temperatures was to correct for the time of day. Modern readings are taken in mid- morning and earlier ones (like the ones in the 1930's) were made in mid- afternoon- when they were at their highest so either the modern temps had to be increased or older temps decreased.

(Irrelevant but Steven Goddard isn't even his real name but a pseudonym)

 

[pcosmar]

Not sure if we can trust his data any better.

 

[pcosmar]

Looks like Wisconsin numbers on that boat.

Is that one of the icebergs that were floating around just up to a couple weeks ago in Green Bay?

That area.. and yes. Eastern Wisconsin is considered Yooper.

There was late ice in the waters widely reported.

it was a long cold winter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...or-despite-Great-Lakes-declared-ice-free.html

 

[Lucille]

The only thing thicker than the ice is the irony.

 

[PRB]

The thing is, these are journal articles reporting on the results of research, most of which is funded by government grants are only awarded to research designed to support anthropogenic global warming and not oppose it.

That is true of almost ALL scientific research, somehow I don't see you automatically doubting ALL scientific research on those grounds alone. Why the singling out?

They mention how global warming skepticism is pushed by money connected to the fossil fuel industry (without actually backing up that claim), as though that mitigates what they say. But they don't seem to recognize any conflict of interest in the connection between their side and the very governments whose power they want to increase.

The difference is, you can't prove that governments directly benefit or profit by getting AGW results.

If what you say is true (and it largely is), that government funds most climate research, logically it means either some of it is non-AGW results, or somebody else would be funding 'skeptical' results, or else you'd have to discount that too.

I notice that the link you gave starts right out by mentioning the 31,000 scientists in the petition project, and nowhere in it does it actually address that. Nor does it actually back up its claim that there is a consensus among scientists.

Here you go.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

 

[PRB]

The raw data should be presented as well as the adjusted data. Adjusted data should be presented as adjusted data, not "actual" temps. Then methodology and how software adjustments were done should be fully disclosed. They pretend they are but they are not.

As PRB is on ignore this will be my only and last response to him.

who collects raw data and why do you trust them?

 

[Zippyjuan]

How quickly we forget.
http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/a-breakdown-of-record-summer-temperatures/

Each dot on this map represents a temperature record set during June of 2012. Click on the image for a larger version. Credit: Climate Central.

 

[LibForestPaul]

According to the American Meterlogical Survey at that link, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 five percent said "global warming isn't happening". Seven percent said they "Don't know if it is happening". That leaves a pretty significant percent saying they believe it is happening. The real dispute is how much impact humans have. Only one percent said "Yes, don't know cause".

So you saying 25% are Free Masons following the money? Thought it would be higher.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

I've become very jaded over the years towards "scientists". I've learned that those men and woman are just like the rest of us. They will bend the truth to promote an agenda. We little guys don't have access to laboratories and reams of data from expensive experiments so we have become complacent and just started believing any kind of BS they send our way. When I was growing up in the 60's we were told that because of our dependence on "fossil" fuels we were creating a climate nightmare that was ushering in a "new ice age". We were going to be covered by growing ice caps and they even had "data" showing how quickly the caps were growing (no doubt fudged). At our rate of consumption (we were told) we would exhaust the worlds oil reserves by the 1990's!! Well here we are in 2014 and getting a sick reversal of that propaganda and you know what?? We're not out of oil... In fact we're swimming in the stuff. Every couple of years we hear of another HUGE deposit discovered somewhere (Australia is the latest).

I'm through with the "scientists" (if they can claim to really be scientists). I don't believe word one from them. Just leave me be...

 

[osan]

Curious why the chart in the blog link only looks at temperatures for three weeks out of the year- June 1st thorugh June 21st- and ignores what are typically the hottest months of the year.


Not even the entire month of June at that. Very selective data. Probably because more data would have disproved the point they were trying to make.

This chart shows more info for the entire years instead of just three weeks:

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

This proves nothing in the absence of knowledge of the long-term nature of planetary climate. A mere 110 years tells us nothing beyond those 110 years.

FAIL.

 

[PRB]

This proves nothing in the absence of knowledge of the long-term nature of planetary climate. A mere 110 years tells us nothing beyond those 110 years.

FAIL.

hypocrisy, when somebody wants to talk about cooling, he'll say the past 15, 30, 80 years, as soon as somebody shows he's wrong or a longer trend, he complains the data isn't going back long enough.

 

[jmdrake]

According to the American Meterlogical Survey at that link, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1 five percent said "global warming isn't happening". Seven percent said they "Don't know if it is happening". That leaves a pretty significant percent saying they believe it is happening. The real dispute is how much impact humans have. Only one percent said "Yes, don't know cause".

So basically you just ignored Danke's survey and countered with one of your own that backed up your belief. How typically unscientific of you.

 

[jmdrake]

I swear I am going to tear my hair out if I see another ridiculous global argument using yet another goalpost to "prove" global warming. The argument used to be the retreat of arctic sea ice, until it was conclusively show that sea ice is expanding. So now it's glacial melting? Why can't you just pick and argument and stick with it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...se-so-why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-expanding/
This year could well see a new record set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice – hot on the heels of last year’s record, which in turn is part of a puzzling 33-year trend in increasing sea ice around Antarctica. Unsurprisingly, these records have provided fodder for those wishing to cast doubt or resist action on climate change.

 

[PRB]

I swear I am going to tear my hair out if I see another ridiculous global argument using yet another goalpost to "prove" global warming. The argument used to be the retreat of arctic sea ice, until it was conclusively show that sea ice is expanding. So now it's glacial melting? Why can't you just pick and argument and stick with it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...se-so-why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-expanding/
This year could well see a new record set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice – hot on the heels of last year’s record, which in turn is part of a puzzling 33-year trend in increasing sea ice around Antarctica. Unsurprisingly, these records have provided fodder for those wishing to cast doubt or resist action on climate change.

Overall measured temperature is the best indication, otherwise there probably is no one single phenomena alone to prove global warming.

 

[Zippyjuan]

So basically you just ignored Danke's survey and countered with one of your own that backed up your belief. How typically unscientific of you.

Actually the figures came FROM the same survey Danke cited.

 

[Zippyjuan]

This proves nothing in the absence of knowledge of the long-term nature of planetary climate. A mere 110 years tells us nothing beyond those 110 years.

FAIL.

And yet some want to take the fact (adjusted) that June 2012 was NOT the hottest month on record (only the SECOND hottest one) to try to say that it somehow disproves climate change.

 

[mad cow]

That well-known bastion of right wing nuttery - the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - has released data showing that US temps have not risen in the last decade and have, in fact, dropped.

Forbes:

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

More at link: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...government_agency_shows_us_cooling_trend.html

 

[FindLiberty]

I've skimmed over the post data and noticed after some cooling back near the end of June with post #51, this thread appears to be heating up again!