Temperature Fraud Expands

[ChescoWx]

@BigJoeBastardi: NOAA Temperature Fraud Expands (Part 1) http://t.co/zBBRXdGB via @wordpressdotcom very good read

[Jonger]

This isn't going to go over well here.

[ChescoWx]

Interesting read however - no matter what your persuasion on climate change....

[Jonger]

Interesting read however - no matter what your persuasion on climate change....

 

I'm a CC moderate, I accept the world has warmed 0.8C compared to the 100 year average... I don't dismiss that it may not have been this warm prior to our very recent data gathering era began...  The lower 48 is experiencing temps that rival the 1930-1950s today. 

[ChescoWx]

Totally see your viewpoint but please post some cogent points to dispute his points in the article. Thanks!

here's some related material showing what utter garbage that blog post is--Goddard is the kind of wacko FOX goes to for climate stuff because FOX doesn't care if they broadcast lies: 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HbjuLWQj'>http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/10/hottest-year-ever-skeptics-question-revisions-to-climate-data/#ixzz2HbjuLWQj

 

 

in addition, Goddard is a birther:

 

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/kenyan-newspaper-said-obama-was-born-in-kenya-in-2004/'>http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/kenyan-newspaper-said-obama-was-born-in-kenya-in-2004/

 

 

 

how anyone could serioulsy post any of his crap here to start a conversation is just mind-boggling. 

[skierinvermont]

Totally see your viewpoint but please post some cogent points to dispute his points in the article. Thanks!

 

 

The article doesn't make any cogent points. It just demonstrates that adjustments have been made, which is an undisputed fact. Then it goes all conspiracy theory and doesn't provide any evidence that the adjustments are bad. It doesn't even say what the adjustments are for. Which is deliberate since they don't want people to even know there are legitimate reasons for the adjustments. They just want people to think these adjustments are made for no other reason than making global warming real.

 

Provide some papers with cogent points about why the adjustments are bad, and maybe I can provide some cogent points in response.

[blizzard1024]

This isn't going to go over well here.

 

My thoughts too.... yikes. 

[FPizz]

Very interesting nonetheless.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This isn't going to go over well here.

 

?????

 

My thoughts too.... yikes. 

 

 

????????

 

 

Very interesting nonetheless.

 

???????????????????

[FloridaJohn]

If you are interested in seeing more about temperature adjustments, check out this website:

 

http://berkeleyearth.org/

 

From the website:

 

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project aims to help resolve criticisms of the temperature record and lower the barriers to entry into climate science. Steps taken toward these goals include:

1. Merged existing surface station temperature data sets into the Berkeley Earth comprehensive raw data set (now available in various different states of “raw”), with a common format that can now be used for weather and climate research

2. Developed alternative statistical methods that remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms, allowing for the use about 5 times more data

3. Created and published a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

4. Published our complete data set and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data, in order to provide an open platform for further analysis

5. Posted all of our findings and draft papers online, inviting comment at the earliest stages of the peer review process

 

This project was started by a group of people who had doubts about the temperature record. After spending years evaluating the data, eliminating suspect weather stations, and creating new algorithms to analyze the data, do you know what they found?

 

The earth is getting warmer, just like all the other data says. The adjustments others have made are legitimate and stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

You cannot construct a homogenous temperature record without adjustments, that is just the way it is. They are not part of a conspiracy, or evil, or anything else.

[blizzard1024]

If you are interested in seeing more about temperature adjustments, check out this website:

 

http://berkeleyearth.org/

 

From the website:

 

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project aims to help resolve criticisms of the temperature record and lower the barriers to entry into climate science. Steps taken toward these goals include:

1. Merged existing surface station temperature data sets into the Berkeley Earth comprehensive raw data set (now available in various different states of “raw”), with a common format that can now be used for weather and climate research

2. Developed alternative statistical methods that remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms, allowing for the use about 5 times more data

3. Created and published a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis

4. Published our complete data set and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data, in order to provide an open platform for further analysis

5. Posted all of our findings and draft papers online, inviting comment at the earliest stages of the peer review process

 

This project was started by a group of people who had doubts about the temperature record. After spending years evaluating the data, eliminating suspect weather stations, and creating new algorithms to analyze the data, do you know what they found?

 

The earth is getting warmer, just like all the other data says. The adjustments others have made are legitimate and stand up to scientific scrutiny.

 

You cannot construct a homogenous temperature record without adjustments, that is just the way it is. They are not part of a conspiracy, or evil, or anything else.

I agree. The earth is warming. This a good study in IMO. When NOAA, and/or GISS made adjustments to the data like the one

that shows the 1930s were cooler and the late 1990s and 2000s were warmer in the new data set vs the old, did they send a press

release or announce the improvements and why the changes were made? Without doing this, they would give conspiracy theorists fodder.

[blizzard1024]

I agree. The earth is warming. This a good study in IMO. When NOAA, and/or GISS made adjustments to the data like the one

that shows the 1930s were cooler and the late 1990s and 2000s were warmer in the new data set vs the old, did they send a press

release or announce the improvements and why the changes were made? Without doing this, they would give conspiracy theorists fodder.

I just found this from the Washington times. Confirms exactly why NOAA-NCDC needs to do a better job explaining

changes IMO. The article is generated off Anthony Watts and company's scrutiny of the datasets and they are going

to the media with it. The media is listening to these guys and now trying to cast doubts on whether there was

any global warming at all.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/11/2012-probably-not-the-hottest-on-record-after-all/

[donsutherland1]

It should be noted that the NCDC published technical reports that address changes. The most recent such report, of which I am aware, can be found at: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdf

[Bozart]

I want to see our local 7-day forecasts get irrationally politicized the way CC has. Now, that would be some funny stuff!

[A-L-E-K]

Very interesting nonetheless.

 

in a not so interesting kind of way

[blizzard1024]

the Washington Times is not a reputable source, and opinion pieces from its paid hacks are not legitimate scientific discussion.  furthermore, the fact they are holding up Anthony Watts, who is not a scientist, as an expert is an additional indication that this isn't a suitable post for this forum.

 

there are a ton of informative, substantive links in the pinned thread in this forum.  I would encourage you to become familiar with them.

You missed my point. I don't concur with this or Anthony Watts as a credible climate scientist. NOAA-NCDC should publicize more about any changes they make

to records to avoid bad press that feeds stories like this. I have gone through the links above and am familiar with them.  I see all sides to a story. That is good for this forum. 

[FPizz]

in a not so interesting kind of way

You clicked on it, so it did interest you?  Blizzard is exactly right in saying NOAA-NCDC should publicize more about any changes they make to records to avoid bad press that feeds stories like this. 

[LocoAko]

You clicked on it, so it did interest you?  Blizzard is exactly right in saying NOAA-NCDC should publicize more about any changes they make to records to avoid bad press that feeds stories like this. 

Or maybe journalists shouldn't give deniers without any true idea of the scientific process behind these datasets airtime? Or should fact check themselves? Maybe we could actually trust scientists on their own merit, forward those more interested in these things to NCDC's explanations, and stop giving deniers the time of day as if there were "two sides" to every story?

 

NCDC has an obligation to explain their work - that they have done. Beyond that, it is not their duty to go above and beyond with the press to defend every single move they make because non-scientists and deniers misunderstand and, really, purposely misinterpret their work.

[ChescoWx]

+100

 

the genesis of this whole non-issue is a trumped up story by FOX "News".  there is no story except for the lies deniers spread.  the fact that people here can't tell from the get go that this is all a big lie is pretty sad.

You really sound like a conspiracy theorist....Fox is too right and MSNBC is too far left - the truth as always is somewhere in the middle. I don't dismiss either argument as I find the topic fascinating. But I have seen and spoken with true scientists as you call them and they can fall on either side of the ledger - however you seem to feel all those who fall on the no evidence side of the balance sheet are loons - not exactly a strong argument to refute in my opinion. The point is back in the 80's some scientists were predicting NYC would be under water by 2015....probably not going to happen. The earth does seem to find it's way to balance things out.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So all interested parties have nothing to present with the validity of GISS or NCDC? 

 

Except they need to have press conferences when they have found a better methodology for compiling the data set.

 

 

That is truly awesome.  I still can't find the PDF paper from UAH explaining the methodology of throwing out AMSU besides knowing it was noisy and warmer than two other satellite measurements.

 

If there is a version 5.5 Paper out there, I would like to read it.  I have not heard a peep out of the fake skeptic camp about those changes. 

[WeatherRusty]

You really sound like a conspiracy theorist....Fox is too right and MSNBC is too far left - the truth as always is somewhere in the middle. I don't dismiss either argument as I find the topic fascinating. But I have seen and spoken with true scientists as you call them and they can fall on either side of the ledger - however you seem to feel all those who fall on the no evidence side of the balance sheet are loons - not exactly a strong argument to refute in my opinion. The point is back in the 80's some scientists were predicting NYC would be under water by 2015....probably not going to happen. The earth does seem to find it's way to balance things out.

 

Really? You may have heard that "fact" bandied about. Who were the scientists who made that claim? Did they make a statement off the record or was their prediction written in the peer-reviewed literature. Do not blame the science for what the rumor mill generates. James Hansen once made an off the record statement to a reporter "friend" who took the private conversation public and in paraphrasing Hansen created this denier gem of a mischaracterization.

 

When it comes to climate science, the truth is not in the middle. The science (peer-reviewed literature)  lopsidedly demonstrates the general reality of AGW. Any attempts to state otherwise by a branch of the media represents poor reporting. Fox News throws out opinion disquised as science.

 

Also, the Earth has no interest in "balancing things out".

[The_Global_Warmer]

+100

 

the genesis of this whole non-issue is a trumped up story by FOX "News".  there is no story except for the lies deniers spread.  the fact that people here can't tell from the get go that this is all a big lie is pretty sad.

 

 

they can tell.  It's easy to think or assume ignorance of that level is as deeply seeded in deniers and fake skeptics.

 

 

It's not, You, me and many others take time retorting stuff, at times compiling upwards of hours worth of data for a post that is combating one-liner troll bait probably has those folks laughing their bleep off by getting a rise out of us.

 

When is the last time you read a post of substance from Jonger?  Never.  or Frankdp23?  never.  Yet these guys are all over this place in these discussions. 

 

Are you not tired of it?  All of us can be wrong in our opinions and postings from time time. 

 

I was wrong about UAH and Dr. Roy Spencer.  I also argued my point with as much evidence and detail as I could but ended up wrong. 

 

but I think it would do everyone a favor if the same posters can't talk about how some data sets are corrupt 50 times in a year and never once even make an argument?

 

it does nothing but set back the pursuit of scientific truth.

 

 

You really sound like a conspiracy theorist....Fox is too right and MSNBC is too far left - the truth as always is somewhere in the middle. I don't dismiss either argument as I find the topic fascinating. But I have seen and spoken with true scientists as you call them and they can fall on either side of the ledger - however you seem to feel all those who fall on the no evidence side of the balance sheet are loons - not exactly a strong argument to refute in my opinion. The point is back in the 80's some scientists were predicting NYC would be under water by 2015....probably not going to happen. The earth does seem to find it's way to balance things out.

 

Well we have machines roaming around in Space and vast networks of data collecting tools on Earth and Super Computers crunching the data those machines in space and tools on Earth find.  Do we need to build a machine the can rip a hole in space to see if radiation from another Star a thousand light years away is leaking heat right into the backdoor of the Earth or what? 

 

What scientists said New York would be under water?

[donsutherland1]

Aside from providing a link to NCDC's technical report that explains the adjustment process, I had considered refraining from commenting on Goddard's latest allegation, as the temperature issue is a settled one so to speak. There is no fraud, manipulation, or deception.

 

1. The major temperature data sets (HadCrut, NCDC, and GISS) all offer a consensus of ongoing observed warming.

2. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project found no evidence that the temperature records are unreliable.

3. Last year, Watts came out with a report questioning the U.S. temperature record, but that report was significantly flawed as it failed to account for time of observation bias (TOBS). The flaw was serious enough to undermine the report's conclusion. To date, no revised report that considers TOBS has been released.

4. Aside from temperatures, plant hardiness zones, first-last freezes, blossoming dates, etc., have shifted in recent decades in a fashion consistent with a warming climate.

 

Given the above, it is difficult to find any reasonable basis on which one can conclude that the U.S. and global temperature records are unreliable.

[FloridaJohn]

I just ran across this little gem from 2010:
 
 

Fox News on climate: skip the science, report the "controversy"

 

This is a story where a memo from Fox News was leaked that contained the following:

 

 

...we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.

 

 

So please be wary of what you get from Fox News, they are deliberately not attempting to "fact check" any climate-related stories.

 

That link came from this article which does a pretty good job of describing the problems with the way Fox is reporting this, including many of the points echoed in this thread.

[blizzard1024]

you linked to a story that FOX news totally made up, quoting people who have zero scientific credibility:  Bastardi, Goddard, Watts.  FOX made up the story--they made up a conspiracy story that the NOAA data was faked.  do you honestly not understand what you posted?

 

I'm not a conspiracy theorist--and true climate scientists do NOT fall on the side of the ledger that accuses the government of faking data that shows that 2012 was a year of record heat.  and people who don't provide solid scientific evidence for their contentions are loons.  how can you have a science-based discussion when you totally ignore facts?

You always talk about "true" climate scientists and "science" based discussions. The problem with this is that climate science really has alienated itself from mainstream

science. Science does not try to silence skeptical viewpoints. True scientists are skeptical by nature. We use the scientific method and part of that is being skeptical

when dealing with complex problems. It is important to be skeptical..  In climate science those who question anything are labeled as "deniers" "flat earthers" etc. In other

scientific fields, skepticism is healthy and a great way to learn when dealing with  complex topics until there are proof. In meteorology we also deal with the complex

atmosphere and there is healthy skepticism when dealing with meteorological theories. Meteorologist often don't agree on certain complex topics but we don't label 

each other skeptics and we certainly don't insult people. Most of us don't come across arrogant, and the science is certainly NOT settled.  For climate science to say

that the science is settled when dealing with the complex climate system in which clouds and tropical convection are poorly understood and PARAMETERIZED  

in the GCMs is ridiculous. Until there is observational proof that the greenhouse effect is ampflying beyond what CO2 does alone implying strong positive feedbacks,

skepticism is needed to learn more. But if you don't believe in strong positive feedbacks you are a denier and your viewpoints are shutdown. Climate science is a

multi-disciplinary field. There are many scientists who are not in climate science but are experts in radiative transfer, meteorology, oceans etc. If these folks don't

believe they are too deniers. No wonder why no one listens to climate scientists. They have alienated themselves from other scientists. If there becomes proof that

clouds and the water vapor feedback are amplifying the CO2 increases then I too would accept the theories. There is no substantive observational proof. If there

is, then where is it? I would love to see it and then I too would convert to the viewpoint of CAGW. Again I do believe in some warming but nothing

that we can't handle as it will be modest and take long periods of time to equilibriate. Man will have to adapt unless the climate system gets swamped by natural

factors too...who knows? 

 

And your viewpoints on this forum continue to feed this negativity and continue to make a real climate science discussion impossible on this forum. good job.

why even have a forum....just everyone read the IPCC and believe everything you read. everything. I am a scientist and I have been called uniformed. I am probably

the most informed person along with some other METs on our climate system. I endured these ridiculous insults because I don't care what you people think. You are

the uniformed ones regarding me. 

 

For the record this is what is known and should NOT be questioned is:

 

1) CO2 in increasing and does lead to some warming all else holding equal...  1.2C per doubling. 

2) The Earth's temperature have gone up by a modest amount. ~ 1C

3) Radiative spectrum have shown some slightly broadening of the CO2 absorption bands but again these

bands are most effective at -50C and are transparent to most terrestrial radiation. They absorb 

most readily in the upper troposphere where the warming has been much less than the surface. 

 

The unknowns with increased CO2 are 

1) cloud feedbacks which could negate any warming,

2) water vapor feedback,

3) effects of possible changes in tropical convection in the Earth's energy budget.  

4) paleoclimatic studies. CO2 lags temperature in ice cores and the explanations as to why are tenuous and defy logic to other scientists (not just me).

[Ellinwood]

There's a difference between skepticism and just plain ignorance. Some people who post in the CC forum are just being ignorant.

[blizzard1024]

There's a difference between skepticism and just plain ignorance. Some people who post in the CC forum are just being ignorant.

That's true. But often if you are skeptical you get that label. I have seen it many time. But your point is well

taken. 

[FloridaJohn]

You always talk about "true" climate scientists and "science" based discussions. The problem with this is that climate science really has alienated itself from mainstream science. Science does not try to silence skeptical viewpoints.

The problem is that the climate scientists are not trying to silence the skeptics, the skeptics (aka Deniers) are trying to silence the scientists. The Deniers know they have the media's ear, they know what needs to be said to journalists to get their point across, and they know how to say it.

Scientists, on the other hand, put all sorts of qualifiers and conditions on their findings and results, and they publish in scientific journals rarely read by journalists or the general public. The scientists feel that the results of their work, through rigorous use of the scientific method and the peer review process, will show what the actual "truth" is in their research.

Unfortunately, the Deniers do not have to be able to defend their claims. Their science does not have to follow the scientific method, nor does it have to be peer reviewed. They can take all the error bars and qualifiers and turn them into "doubt" about the findings. All they have to do is create a public awareness of a "controversy." By not losing, the Deniers win. Because as long as the public has the perception that the science is not "settled," then inaction is the proper course. However, if the science were actually settled (like it is and has been for a long time), then the discussion will have to move to solutions to the problems. And the companies funding The Deniers do not want that to happen (because it will be bad for business). Business as usual is a win for The Deniers. And right now, they are winning.

I would also add that this is unlike almost any other scientific field, or as you put it "mainstream science." There are no coordinated attacks against astronomy, or geology, or just about any other field. The only other field that has seen this kind of attack was the medical field in the "debate" about smoking. If you look at the history of that "debate," you will find the exact same arguments used in the climate change "debate" against the idea that smoking is bad for you, and that second-hand smoke is bad for you (aka "the science isn't settled," "it is natural," "if it does happen, it won't be bad"). In fact, if you look into it a little further, you will find the exact same people that sided with the tobacco companies are the ones leading the charge against the science of climate change. And that has to make you think; Why?

[blizzard1024]

The problem is that the climate scientists are not trying to silence the skeptics, the skeptics (aka Deniers) are trying to silence the scientists. The Deniers know they have the media's ear, they know what needs to be said to journalists to get their point across, and they know how to say it.

Scientists, on the other hand, put all sorts of qualifiers and conditions on their findings and results, and they publish in scientific journals rarely read by journalists or the general public. The scientists feel that the results of their work, through rigorous use of the scientific method and the peer review process will show what the actual "truth" is in their research.

Unfortunately, the Deniers do not have to be able to defend their claims. Their science does not have to follow the scientific method, nor does it have to be peer reviewed. They can take all the error bars and qualifiers and turn them into "doubt" about the findings. All they have to do is create a public awareness of a "controversy." By not losing, the Deniers win. Because as long as the public has the perception that the science is not "settled," then inaction is the proper course. However, if the science were actually settled (like it is and has been for a long time), then the discussion will have to move to solutions to the problems. And the companies funding The Deniers do not want that to happen (because it will be bad for business). Business as usual is a win for The Deniers. And right now, they are winning.

I would also add that this is unlike almost any other scientific field, or as you put it "mainstream science." There are no coordinated attacks against astronomy, or geology, or just about any other field. The only other field that has seen this kind of attack was the medical field in the "debate" about smoking. If you look at the history of that "debate," you will find the exact same arguments used in the climate change "debate" against the idea that smoking is bad for you, and that second-hand smoke is bad for you (aka "the science isn't settled," "it is natural," "if it does happen, it won't be bad"). In fact, if you look into it a little further, you will find the exact same people that sided with the tobacco companies are the ones leading the charge against the science of climate change. And that has to make you think; Why?

 

People are putting some of us in this forum into this "denier" category and we don't deserve it. I agree with the basic premise of AGW. I just don't think it is settled that we will see CAGW. I already stated what is settled and what is uncertain. There are uncertainties in the feedbacks, clouds and convection. When they say the science is settled it can't be for this stuff. There is too much complexity in the climate system. Other fields are not proposed major changes to how society lives. That is why there are attacks on climate science especially because they say the science is settled for CAGW and we need to act know. That is why the other fields don't get attacked. They are not proposing measures that could make energy much more expensive and experiment with our global economy.  It is possible that the effects on the global economy would not be bad...but there is uncertainty here too. 

 

I am not up on the smoking issue but those who are ignorant of the climate system and trying to protect business interests will no doubt side with people who are skeptical. However,  many of these people can be classified as "deniers" because they don't even believe the earth is warming, or that CO2 warms the atmosphere. In fact, I have even seen some hack scientists who wrote a paper stating that CO2 actually leads to cooling! This is junk science and these people might be classified as "deniers" because CO2 and its radiative properties have been confirmed by spectroscopy. But I still don't like calling anyone names and won't. 

 

Thanks for the good reply. Wish others had your tact and reasonable approach to a comment.  cheers.  

[blizzard1024]

you have yet to call out the issues with the link in the first post. 

Not sure what your are talking about. There are so many posts...please let me know and I will address to the

best of my ability.