New temp revisions continue to cool past and warm present.....thoughts?

[LakeEffectKing]

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/science-by-lubchencos-noaa-fake-global-warming-by-changing-historical-temperature-data.html

[Vergent]

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

Credentials

• Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England.
  
• M.A., University of Manitoba.
  
• B.A., University of Winnipeg. [1]
  

Background

Tin Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), "scientific advisor" to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is also associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

The NRSP's list of "scientific advisors" includes Tim Patterson, Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas, all of which are also listed as advisors to the FOS.

DeSmog also uncovered that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project were all at one time senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."

[LakeEffectKing]

Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)

Credentials

• Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England.
  
• M.A., University of Manitoba.
  
• B.A., University of Winnipeg. [1]
  

Background

Tin Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), "scientific advisor" to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is also associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

The NRSP's list of "scientific advisors" includes Tim Patterson, Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas, all of which are also listed as advisors to the FOS.

DeSmog also uncovered that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project were all at one time senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."

Ahhh...thanks! I'll ignore the data too!

To anyone else: Any thoughts more intelligent than Vermin's? (Shouldn't be difficult)

[Vergent]

Not only is this not peer reviewed, it is anonymous. An anonymous author citing an Exxon lobbyist.

your aluminum foil hat is slipping.

the link to the data does not seem to go anywhere

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90s.90n.df_1901_2000mean.dat

Just what is this smoking gun smoking?

[Vergent]

http://martlet.ca/martlet/article/The-real-Climategate-creates-climate-smokescreen/

[LakeEffectKing]

http://martlet.ca/ma...te-smokescreen/

The best you can do??? A 2009 article (non-pee-reviewed, btw ) post CG 1.0??

The question in my opening post was any thoughts on the known (and accepted by many here) fact that previous (and now current) historical temperature revisions are seemingly continuing the pattern of lowering the past and raising the present.

This has been discussed in the past, so it is a known red flag....

[Vergent]

At least it has an author. And it is labeled opinion.

How can an opinion be peer reviewed?

[Vergent]

The best you can do??? A 2009 article (non-pee-reviewed, btw ) post CG 1.0??

The question in my opening post was any thoughts on the known (and accepted by many here) fact that previous (and now current) historical temperature revisions are seemingly continuing the pattern of lowering the past and raising the present.

This has been discussed in the past, so it is a known red flag....

Before you start calling something a known fact, you need something stronger than an anonymous posting of untraceable data.

[LakeEffectKing]

At least it has an author. And it is labeled opinion.

How can an opinion be peer reviewed?

When a group of agenda driven scientists get together......

[Vergent]

When a group of agenda driven scientists get together......

Do you mean something like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/climate-change-skeptics-unite-heartland-conference_n_889008.html

[kylemacr]

Honestly, without being able to see the old files that were supposedly changed over time, this is rather meaningless. If you go to the data source that this article mentions: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat, you see this:

January 1880... -0.0610

November 1984... 0.0128

May 2008... 0.4667

Notice that none of those numbers match up with the numbers posted in this article. Sorry, but unless I can view the actual data that a study (or weird blog post) uses, I can't really believe it.

[kylemacr]

Okay, so I did a little investigative work. I went to the directory that the data file is located in, and read the readme file! You can view it here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/readme.txt .

Also, the dataset did change, and the changes are documented in there. The file that describes the changes can be found here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/blended/ghcnm-v3.pdf . This is a fact of life, folks... datasets change. You can read even more about it here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php .

[kylemacr]

One more post! You can navigate to the directory that has the data from the previous dataset version for comparison. You can view that file here. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/usingGHCNMv2/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

January 1880... -0.0360

November 1984... -0.0155

May 2008... 0.4368

... for what it's worth.

[Vergent]

looks like this propagandist just relabeled an anomaly graph.

[LakeEffectKing]

Okay, so I did a little investigative work. I went to the directory that the data file is located in, and read the readme file! You can view it here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa....lies/readme.txt .

Also, the dataset did change, and the changes are documented in there. The file that describes the changes can be found here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa....ed/ghcnm-v3.pdf . This is a fact of life, folks... datasets change. You can read even more about it here: http://www.ncdc.noaa...q/anomalies.php .

Of course datasets change, however, if numerous audits consistantly revise data that happens to "fit" a current hypothesis, then a skeptical red flag is raised wrt the objectivity that the audit(s) is/are performed. And the explainations for such revisions are highly subjective in nature.

[kylemacr]

Of course datasets change, however, if numerous audits consistantly revise data that happens to "fit" a current hypothesis, then a skeptical red flag is raised wrt the objectivity that the audit(s) is/are performed. And the explainations for such revisions are highly subjective in nature.

Except that isn't what is happening. The changes are done using objective statistical methods that are laid out clearly in the documentation. As with any dataset, this one has its pros and cons, and if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. There are lots to choose from.

[WeatherRusty]

Of course datasets change, however, if numerous audits consistantly revise data that happens to "fit" a current hypothesis, then a skeptical red flag is raised wrt the objectivity that the audit(s) is/are performed. And the explainations for such revisions are highly subjective in nature.

Aren't you the one always clamoring for adherence to the scientific method? Yet, when measures are taken to improve the quality of the historical data, fully out in the open, you complain about that too. Those sneaky scientists can put anything past you can they!

By the way, global warming theory existed long before the data for the second half of the 20th century came in. Science didn't create a theory to explain the data, the data fits the theory already in place, so of course you are going to see it that way.

[LakeEffectKing]

Aren't you the one always clamoring for adherence to the scientific method? Yet, when measures are taken to improve the quality of the historical data, fully out in the open, you complain about that too. Those sneaky scientists can put anything past you can they!

By the way, global warming theory existed long before the data for the second half of the 20th century came in. Science didn't create a theory to explain the data, the data fits the theory already in place, so of course you are going to see it that way.

If you think the methodology for revising the "data" is part of the scientific method....then that has been part of the problem all along! I'll go with kyle's suggestion and just "not accept" the revisions from this data set.

[WeatherRusty]

If you think the methodology for revising the "data" is part of the scientific method....then that has been part of the problem all along! I'll go with kyle's suggestion and just "not accept" the revisions from this data set.

Where you see hanky panky I see an attempt at improvement, which is supposed to be the strength of the scientific method. You're getting close to being conspiracy theorist again.

Statistical analysis is part of the scientific process when researching a fundamentally probabilistic construct such as climate study. Can't escape it. You don't like it because it doesn't provide for an iron clad, absolute set of numbers. It's a reality you will have to learn to deal with in modern science which is not, unfortunately for us all entirely deterministic like we would like.

[LakeEffectKing]

Where you see hanky panky I see an attempt at improvement, which is supposed to be the strength of the scientific method. You're getting close to being conspiracy theorist again.

Statistical analysis is part of the scientific process when researching a fundamentally probabilistic construct such as climate study. Can't escape it. You don't like it because it doesn't provide for an iron clad, absolute set of numbers. It's a reality you will have to learn to deal with in modern science which is not, unfortunately for us all entirely deterministic like we would like.

You only see agenda driven aspects from the skeptics side, but do not see the same potential from the "scientists/experts"....even when: it is quite blatant in the leaked emails....several arrests have been made of someone whom we are to presume to be an objective expert....data is revised that EXTREMELY "helps" support a hypothesis (doesn't do crap for testing it) at every revision.

And as hard as you try, you will not succeed in painting me as a non believer of CO2 being a positve forcing mechanism on our climate, wrt energy.....keep trying with your "conspiracy theorist" statements.

You and your ilk wonder why you push so many agnostics (wrt climate opinon) away (and into skeptical/denier mode) when engaging. I ask a simple "what are your thoughts" and I get ad hominems and character attacks on some contributor of an "opinon" paper. Nice!

[WeatherRusty]

You only see agenda driven aspects from the skeptics side, but do not see the same potential from the "scientists/experts"....even when: it is quite blatant in the leaked emails....several arrests have been made of someone whom we are to presume to be an objective expert....data is revised that EXTREMELY "helps" support a hypothesis (doesn't do crap for testing it) at every revision.

And as hard as you try, you will not succeed in painting me as a non believer of CO2 being a positve forcing mechanism on our climate, wrt energy.....keep trying with your "conspiracy theorist" statements.

You and your ilk wonder why you push so many agnostics (wrt climate opinon) away (and into skeptical/denier mode) when engaging. I ask a simple "what are your thoughts" and I get ad hominems and character attacks on some contributor of an "opinon" paper. Nice!

I don't have to call you a conspiracy theorist, that you are is plain to see. I don't see the "potential" but you do? You don't claim potential, you don't trust the climate scientists because you think the potential has been realized..I don't. It's not an unwarranted personal attack, and you are attacking the integrity of the scientists so who are you to complain.

You believe the interpretation of crooks when looking at stolen e-mails. Who are you to judge the character of others?

You don't believe in civil disobedience? You know, put your ______ where your mouth is?

The validity of AGW is not dependent on the past 150 years of temperature data. Actually it's the other way around, the temperature record can only be explained by already established theory which combines the affects of natural and human activity induced causation. The theory would be just as strong if the temperature had not risen over the past several decades. We would need to explain why

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't have to call you a conspiracy theorist, that you are is plain to see. I don't see the "potential" but you do? You don't claim potential, you don't trust the climate scientists because you think the potential has been realized..I don't. It's not an unwarranted personal attack, and you are attacking the integrity of the scientists so who are you to complain.

You believe the interpretation of crooks when looking at stolen e-mails. Who are you to judge the character of others?

You don't believe in civil disobedience? You know, put your ______ where your mouth is?

The validity of AGW is not dependent on the past 150 years of temperature data. Actually it's the other way around, the temperature record can only be explained by already established theory which combines the affects of natural and human activity induced causation. The theory would be just as strong if the temperature had not risen over the past several decades. We would need to explain why

A. Your first paragraph is all subjective hot air. I'm questioning the method of data revision.....and that somehow is an attack on "the integrity of scientists"???.....Thinned skinned skin are we? I question the objectiveness of a person who demonstrates activism...much like you question the objectiveness of those on "the other side" who have any direct or indirect association with a FF company.....Attacking??

B. Activisim is great, have no problem with it....but it certainly conflicts with someone in charge of upholding objective study on the subject in which he is actively "taking sides", enough so to be pay more scrutiny to the potential of interpretive science.

Hansen is a scientist.....he should have pimped out the activism...dumb move on his part.

C. IMO, the job of releasing the emails was from the inside. But it bolsters your perception of an "evil other side" to have it be some wicked, nasty, thief....so be it.

D. The validity of the AGW hypothesis has it's foundation in KNOWN physics....with the data TRYING to support it. It doesn't "look good" when the data AND the hypothesis is getting "tweaked" at the same time. Sorry you don't see it that way.

[kylemacr]

Lakeeffect - why do you not accept the revisions? Is it because you don't like what the numbers have turned into, or do you have a problem with the actual methodology, as described in one of those links I posted?

[The_Global_Warmer]

LEK-

Show us the holes in their methods of obtaining the data.

Show us the errors and the parts of the data that were manipulated?

You can also show us how you would have done it differently?

[PhillipS]

Let's compare two recent publications regarding the validity of the GISS temperature record - the BEST project reports and the article LEK linked to. Interestingly they come to opposite conclusions.

The BEST project was conducted by a varied and high caliber team of experts who worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.. They were completely transparent in their methodology - something the Skeptical camp has called for in climate science. They have posted the data they used in their analysis - again, an approach deemed essential by the skeptics. They posted the draft reports on-line, opening their review to anyone with a computer. And they will publish the reports after they have passed through a full peer-review. Oh, yeah, the BEST team found that the GISS temperature record is robust and accurate.

The other, the one LEK linked to, is an anonymous column in an conservative advocacy blog accusing NOAA/NCDC of repeatedly tampering with the temperature record. The supporting data and methodology used by the writer are conspicuously absent. The column isn't peer-reviewed science, it won't ever be peer-reviewed science, and it doesn't even link to any peer-reviewed science. There is nothing but lies and repeatedly debunked denialist nonsense - really a rather pathetic attempt to spread doubt on the long-term temperature record, and on the NOAA scientists, because if the temperature record is flaky and the scientists are crooked then there's no need to worry about AGW, right?

An honest skeptic, if he ever stumbled upon the C3 Headlines blog, would only need a quick glance to realize there is no substance there, it's all garbage. So, which assessment of the temperature record does LEK endorse? No surprise, he likes the second one. The column claims to confirm his biases so it must be true.

LEK, that blog is serving up crap and telling readers it's fudge. It's fine if you want to gobble it up and ask for more, but what was your motive for posting the link to it here? Did you really think you would change anyone's mind with that nonsense?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Let's compare two recent publications regarding the validity of the GISS temperature record - the BEST project reports and the article LEK linked to. Interestingly they come to opposite conclusions.

The BEST project was conducted by a varied and high caliber team of experts who worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.. They were completely transparent in their methodology - something the Skeptical camp has called for in climate science. They have posted the data they used in their analysis - again, an approach deemed essential by the skeptics. They posted the draft reports on-line, opening their review to anyone with a computer. And they will publish the reports after they have passed through a full peer-review. Oh, yeah, the BEST team found that the GISS temperature record is robust and accurate.

The other, the one LEK linked to, is an anonymous column in an conservative advocacy blog accusing NOAA/NCDC of repeatedly tampering with the temperature record. The supporting data and methodology used by the writer are conspicuously absent. The column isn't peer-reviewed science, it won't ever be peer-reviewed science, and it doesn't even link to any peer-reviewed science. There is nothing but lies and repeatedly debunked denialist nonsense - really a rather pathetic attempt to spread doubt on the long-term temperature record, and on the NOAA scientists, because if the temperature record is flaky and the scientists are crooked then there's no need to worry about AGW, right?

An honest skeptic, if he ever stumbled upon the C3 Headlines blog, would only need a quick glance to realize there is no substance there, it's all garbage. So, which assessment of the temperature record does LEK endorse? No surprise, he likes the second one. The column claims to confirm his biases so it must be true.

LEK, that blog is serving up crap and telling readers it's fudge. It's fine if you want to gobble it up and ask for more, but what was your motive for posting the link to it here? Did you really think you would change anyone's mind with that nonsense?

You have quickly emerged a top poster here. You are very good at articulating your points abd staying grounded. It is refreshing to have things laid out so well.

[donsutherland1]

The BEST project was conducted by a varied and high caliber team of experts who worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.. They were completely transparent in their methodology - something the Skeptical camp has called for in climate science. They have posted the data they used in their analysis - again, an approach deemed essential by the skeptics. They posted the draft reports on-line, opening their review to anyone with a computer. And they will publish the reports after they have passed through a full peer-review...

For those who are interested, the work related to this study can be found at: http://berkeleyearth.org/

[A-L-E-K]

Let's compare two recent publications regarding the validity of the GISS temperature record - the BEST project reports and the article LEK linked to. Interestingly they come to opposite conclusions.

The BEST project was conducted by a varied and high caliber team of experts who worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.. They were completely transparent in their methodology - something the Skeptical camp has called for in climate science. They have posted the data they used in their analysis - again, an approach deemed essential by the skeptics. They posted the draft reports on-line, opening their review to anyone with a computer. And they will publish the reports after they have passed through a full peer-review. Oh, yeah, the BEST team found that the GISS temperature record is robust and accurate.

The other, the one LEK linked to, is an anonymous column in an conservative advocacy blog accusing NOAA/NCDC of repeatedly tampering with the temperature record. The supporting data and methodology used by the writer are conspicuously absent. The column isn't peer-reviewed science, it won't ever be peer-reviewed science, and it doesn't even link to any peer-reviewed science. There is nothing but lies and repeatedly debunked denialist nonsense - really a rather pathetic attempt to spread doubt on the long-term temperature record, and on the NOAA scientists, because if the temperature record is flaky and the scientists are crooked then there's no need to worry about AGW, right?

An honest skeptic, if he ever stumbled upon the C3 Headlines blog, would only need a quick glance to realize there is no substance there, it's all garbage. So, which assessment of the temperature record does LEK endorse? No surprise, he likes the second one. The column claims to confirm his biases so it must be true.

LEK, that blog is serving up crap and telling readers it's fudge. It's fine if you want to gobble it up and ask for more, but what was your motive for posting the link to it here? Did you really think you would change anyone's mind with that nonsense?

what a smackdown

[Vergent]

Let's compare two recent publications regarding the validity of the GISS temperature record - the BEST project reports and the article LEK linked to. Interestingly they come to opposite conclusions.

The BEST project was conducted by a varied and high caliber team of experts who worked under the auspices of the University of California at Berkeley.. They were completely transparent in their methodology - something the Skeptical camp has called for in climate science. They have posted the data they used in their analysis - again, an approach deemed essential by the skeptics. They posted the draft reports on-line, opening their review to anyone with a computer. And they will publish the reports after they have passed through a full peer-review. Oh, yeah, the BEST team found that the GISS temperature record is robust and accurate.

The other, the one LEK linked to, is an anonymous column in an conservative advocacy blog accusing NOAA/NCDC of repeatedly tampering with the temperature record. The supporting data and methodology used by the writer are conspicuously absent. The column isn't peer-reviewed science, it won't ever be peer-reviewed science, and it doesn't even link to any peer-reviewed science. There is nothing but lies and repeatedly debunked denialist nonsense - really a rather pathetic attempt to spread doubt on the long-term temperature record, and on the NOAA scientists, because if the temperature record is flaky and the scientists are crooked then there's no need to worry about AGW, right?

An honest skeptic, if he ever stumbled upon the C3 Headlines blog, would only need a quick glance to realize there is no substance there, it's all garbage. So, which assessment of the temperature record does LEK endorse? No surprise, he likes the second one. The column claims to confirm his biases so it must be true.

LEK, that blog is serving up crap and telling readers it's fudge. It's fine if you want to gobble it up and ask for more, but what was your motive for posting the link to it here? Did you really think you would change anyone's mind with that nonsense?

Well said.

LEK-We measure your B.S. with telephone poles. Now we know where you get it.

[LakeEffectKing]

Meh....not my strongest thread start...but, hey....at least I gave you guys all a chance to look really smart!!!