Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

Register Log in

Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records 41

Status
Not open for further replies.
zdas04

zdas04

Mechanical
Jun 25, 2002
10,274
0
0
US
There is a 53 minute presentation at Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records from Steve Goddard (who starts by describing his qualifications which seem to be rock solid) that shows many high quality examples of how dramatically the climate data has been modified. One interesting observation is that approximately 50% of U.S. weather stations have been taken out of service in the last 30 years (primarily rural) and the data is "estimated" based on the remaining stations which are primarily urban (and most have been "corrected" for heat island effects). His data shows clearly exactly how the climate data has been manipulated (always in the same direction). It is worth 53 minutes to see if your credibility button gets pushed.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Sort by date Sort by votes
That's a pretty powerful indictment of NASA scientists for manipulating climate data. Thanks for sharing it, Dave.

I wish this message could be made more concise and presented by someone who could get people more excited about it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Someone else is also playing sleight of hand here.

Heller claims that the Arctic is "full" of ice, by showing a satellite image, neglecting to mention that ice is 3 dimensional. The fact that the Arctic summer ice is at its lowest now, compared to 50 years ago says that his "full" of ice image has much thinner ice, which Heller helpfully ignores, so as to not confuse us about his claims.



TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Good post Dave, although it is not likely to change the course of the political decisions associated with "climate change". Control of the data is a proven method of controlling the debate , and it follows the political science models used for controlling the debate on other topics, including food safety, nuclear energy, public health, etc. Information is power, as they used to say, and nobody likes to give up power.

"In this bright future, you can't forget your past..." Bob Marley
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's where the good engineer needs to ask, do my calculations reflect something of reality?

So if you can't trust the data source, can you really trust the conclusions?

Is planting cloned redwood trees a good idea?

Should carbon capture be required?

Are high taxes the one and only solution?

etc.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tony Heller/Steve Goddard might be right, NASA (…and NOAA…and MET Office…and JAXA…and an independent group of skeptics who specifically designed a data set to correct the “errors” of the other data sets, BEST) might be purposefully (and independently) fudging surface temperature data to show warming that isn’t there and (independently) getting similar results. Maybe the planet really isn’t warming and it’s all a massive fraud involving some of the best scientific institutions on the planet, from multiple different countries, and numerous prominent scientific journals. It’s a big conspiracy!

…but it gets even bigger! If all the surface temperature data sets are fudging the data that means, of course, that someone else is fudging:
[ul][li]Images of the decline in arctic sea ice[/li]
[li]The data that shows the loss of arctic sea ice[/li]
[li]The data that shows the loss of Antarctic land ice (for sea ice see Zhang 2007 and Bingtanga et al 2013)[/li]
[li]The data that shows the loss of glacier mass[/li]
[li]The data the shows the rise in sea level[/li]
[li]The data that shows the increase in humidity[/li]
[li]The data that shows the increase in OHC[/li][/ul]

Or, y’know, alternatively, this Tony Heller/Steve Goddard guy might be wrong.

If you really think the warming is all made up, you have to explain why multiple different metrics all tell the same story, which is the planet is accruing energy. Honestly, it’s one of those things, along with the greenhouse effect and the anthropogenic cause of increased atmospheric CO2 (both of which zdas04 rejects...*cough* "credibility button" *cough*), that is simply not controversial. You’re more than welcome to read the following paper – Hausfather et al 2016 - that demonstrates the accuracy of the temperature data sets.

zdas04 said:
His data shows clearly exactly how the climate data has been manipulated (always in the same direction).
Click to expand...
Is that direction down? Because the balance of “manipulations” have decreased the warming trend since 1900.
[image ]

davefitz said:
Control of the data is a proven method of controlling the debate
Click to expand...
...expect the data and analysis methods are open and available for anyone to review.
...expect the only group that was skeptical of the data and actually went and re-did the science, correcting all the "fudging" of other places, got the same results as those other "corrupt" places.

(PS – I hadn’t heard of “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness”, who put on this talk, but, according to Wikipedia, they give out the “Petr Beckmann Award”. Petr Beckmann was a guy that was most notable for rejecting the Theory of Relativity. Quality institution, much better than those bums at NASA..and Einstein, apparently. *cough* "credibility button" *cough*)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
rconnor,
That is very very sad. First you do a self-righteous Call to Authority and then you end with an ad hominen attack on the host organization. Your links are utter nonsense.

Is it true that the latest set of "Final" temperature data on the NASA site contain nearly half of the current record marked as "E"stimated? Yes it is. Is it true that the basis for these estimates is the moving average within a specified radius that includes data already "adjusted" for the "heat island effect" (with disclosure of which records those edits impacted)? Yes it is. Is it true that the historical sea level data presented today shows more sea level rise in recent decades than that same data set showed 30 years ago? Yes it is. Is it true that the correlation between rate of CO2 change and the magnitude of data adjustments is nearly perfect (as in the temperature data adjustments have a target)? Yes it is.

The "conspiricy" does not have to be huge since everyone is using one of about 5 datasets. To me the bottom line of this discussion is that anyone who believes in the integrity of the data is delusional. Anyone who uses the data for purported "scientific" purposes is either delusional or dishonest. The best evidence that this hoax is coming unraveled is the suit against Exxon and the various AG efforts to prosecute "deniers"--when it reaches the point of trials for heresy yon know that the inquisitors are becoming frantic.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
zdas04, it's pretty simple, if you think the warming is all made up, then you must also assume that ice data is all made up, ocean heat content data is all made up, sea level data is all made up, glacial data is all made up, etc., because they all, independently, indicate a warming planet (the consilience of evidence is incredibly strong). This means your conspiracy runs far deeper than 5 data sets, including one specifically designed by skeptics to address the "tampering" you are so sure about in the other 4 data sets. Now, I'm sure you have no issues dismissing all that with a wave of your magical hands. Others don't find it as compelling.

Also, it's not an appeal to authority; it's an appeal to common sense. Compare the likelihood that (1) dozens of data sets, involving thousands of scientists, from dozens of different institutions and different countries, published in dozens of different peer-reviewed journals are all making up data that says the planet is accruing heat against the likelihood that (2) some random "skeptic", with an ideological reason to throw out the science, is wrong. Especially when every attempt to "prove" the data is "fudged" are either incredibly weak (such as, in the absence of any broader context, examining the temperature trend of a single city) or incredibly flawed (such as extending the results of examining the temperature trend of a single city to the entire planet).

Furthermore, if the data is so "obviously fudged", all it would take is a single paper to pulled down the whole house of cards. There is tremendous industry and political support to fund such a study, yet all we get is random blog articles and self-congratulating "conferences" involving the same dozen or so professional "skeptics", regurgitating the same debunked claims. It's disappointing really, I'd expect you folks to do better.

(Also, I see you've avoided commenting on the fact that all this "fudging" and "manipulation" has lowered the warming trend since 1900. Kinda inconvenient when your point is the exact opposite.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not to mention fudging satellite photos, but then, Heller does that as well.

I agree, if the data were falsified, then why was there a "pause" and why did even last more than 5 years? Surely, the conspirators would have quickly figured out how to jigger the measurements to bring them back into line with the conspiracy's desires.

As with Moon landing and other so-called conspiracies, it's amazing that these venal, money grubbing, "scientists" have yet to cough up a single whistle blower to say, "Yea, verily, I saw manipulation of data," or "I manipulated the data." Why can't the Koch brothers even bribe someone to lie about it? If they're all that greedy, surely someone would succumb to temptation and rat out the rest. And yet, for more that 40 years, not a single person has come forward on this. Come on, the Koch brothers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on politicians, surely, even $20 million would buy one measly scientist, particularly if will assuage their conscience to do the right thing.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IRstuff,
You are just being offensive without adding anything at all to the discussion. Please stop.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I guess you are talking about
I agree, if the data were falsified, then why was there a "pause" and why did even last more than 5 years?
Click to expand...
and I will not presume to speak to the techniques used by people to manipulate data. I have no idea how subtle their goals are..

The there question I saw was
Why can't the Koch brothers even bribe someone to lie about it?
Click to expand...
and I really hate how the Koch brothers (who do do some great things for this country) are always the liberal medias whipping boy. The top 10 contributors to politics in this country are all liberals and liberal organizations, the last list I saw had the Koch brothers and their foundation at number 12. This question was no more "valid" than the first.

I have no clue what you are talking about with the moon landing. If the video mentioned that I must have missed it. I sure never claimed that it wasn't real. As to people manipulating climate data, some of them have come forward with stories of being asked to change data (the speaker in the video was one of them).

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Who pays is irrelevant, and you should know that; the point is that no one has yet been bought or bribed to say that it's a hoax, yet, you continue to make accusations about scientists being so money-oriented that they would concoct a decades long conspiracy, and yet, they don't seem to be for sale to bolster your argument.

The reference to moon landings should likewise be obvious; it's yet another multi-decade conspiracy theory that has never been broken. Everything is faked, government scientists and engineers are all blinded by the money to subvert the truth.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It doesn't have to be about money. I rather doubt it is, the money is just a handy side effect. Its about groupthink, belief in the idea of catastrophic AGW, and a willingness to ignore the scientific method. And an unbelievable reliance on rotten computer models.

The climate scientists then were employed as useful idiots by the world's politicians.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Seems like a similar groupthink on the other side, where everything is attributed to a massive conspiracy(ies) that have so far been impenetrable, yet, at the same time, many on that side claim that government and politicians are absurdly incompetent. If they were as incompetent as we're told, it would be impossible for them to maintain a perfectly radio-silent conspiracy that has lasted 4 decades. Moreover, since both political parties have had almost equal control over the government, then they both must be party to the conspiracy. Which means that their platform of rejecting AGW is a complete sham and lie, as they must be part of that conspiracy.

When your worldview presents two scenarios that are diametrically opposed as equally correct, the your worldview needs a reboot.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! faq731-376 forum1529
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IRStuff,
What the heck are you talking about? I have personally compared datasets purported to be from the same source that were dramatically different. I have then revisited the data at a later time and found that the datasets still did not match each other, but they also didn't match the first set I extracted and saved. That is an observation. Not a theory. Not a conspiracy. Simply an observation. The video is full of similar observations. If I observe that all of the data currently available does not match the data that was available 10 years ago (of course for the same time period, I'm not saying they are different because the new version has added records, don't go down that dead end) then I feel that pointing this out is useful.

I do not know why the field of climate science has such little regard for either the integrity of the data or for people's ability to compare past graphs to current graphs, but they do seem to have utter contempt for both the data integrity and the ability to document "revisions". I cannot imagine how someone can take a reading, store it in a database, and then later "discover" that it was incorrect and that it requires destructive revisions to the database rather than making revisions to a copy if indeed their time machine is that compelling.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Looking at the slides.

Page 2: He has a bachelor of science in geology. Not exactly related.
Page 3: Displays his chops as a lover of the environment. Good for him.
Page 4: Titled methodology. NO actual methodology listed.
Page 5: Die photo of an integrated circuit. ??? ??? ???????? I guess just to impress ?
Page 6: Questions whether the climate is warming at all. I though all have agreed on this point.
Page 7- Anecdotal selections in both time and place displayed as though it has meaning WRT global temperature.

That's about all I cared to read.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Who has taken the raw historical climate data and constructed their own global temperature reconstruction with well documented and sound techniques to make a counter claim.
If no one has why not.

Sound techniques would involve calibrating out all reasonable known errors to each data source independently and then combining using state of the art estimation techniques. Not collecting anecdotes and catchphrases.

I know of no such scientific work. If you know of one I would appreciate a link.

With so much at stake and so many people passionate about the issue all they have done is attack the current work and created none of their own.

Did the scientist destroy the raw data.. I can anticipate that angle. If so that is a tragedy.

In short why nothing but attacks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ian Portsmouth
  • Locked
  • Question
Who will the Engineer of the Future be? 4
2
Replies
28
Views
29
geotechguy1
geotechguy1
EngineerRam
  • Locked
  • Question
Decoupling of Buyer's and Seller's Agents Fees - Real Estate - Implications on Engineering Industry
Replies
11
Views
31
IRstuff
IRstuff
FuelCellEng
  • Locked
  • Question
Suitable types of Fuel Cells for Automotive Application 2
Replies
2
Views
14
BrianPetersen
BrianPetersen
geotechguy1
  • Locked
  • Question
Changes to the iron ring ceremony 4
2
Replies
31
Views
32
Sparweb
Sparweb
Geotech-ing
  • Locked
  • Article
Geotechnical Engineering - The Great Divide between Younger and Older Engineers 14
Replies
17
Views
32
CWB1
CWB1
Back
Top