Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records 41

[zdas04]

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

 

[IRstuff]

" 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. "

Seems odd that you'd bury the lead. Why hide this? Why not post all the datasets that you've saved and their sources for all to see? Why not post the explanations of the differences so that we can all see that as well, and why you think the rationale is bogus?

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[GregLocock]

I can post some of the older datasets in a couple of weeks, it would be trivial to download the latest version of them for comparison.

I would guess that if the corrections have been made transparently then the relevant organizations would have already done exactly that. When my employer releases a new version of the software the first thing we do is publish the difference in results between the old version and the new version running the same model.

If the older datasets are not readily accessible then the wayback machine may be useful.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

IRStuff,
No. I have no obligation to dig up those drives from my storeroom to spoon feed you data that you will then accuse me of having manipulated. Not going to do it. Do your own analysis and see if the data stands up to the sniff test. See for yourself if nearly half of the stations have been estimated (flagged with an "E" in the database) and ask the question "what is the basis for this estimate?". Stop looking for easy answers to difficult questions.

As to me claiming a conspiracy, I don't see where that is relevant in this thread. In this thread, I said "watch this video and decide for yourself if you thing the data has been manipulated" and have been defending myself against personal attacks ever since. I am done doing that. I ask you to go to the rawest data that you have the technical capability to analyze, pull your head out of your agenda and look at the data critically. I found that it does not stand up to critical scrutiny (as in "would I make a project decision based on data of this quality?"). I have talked to dozens of "outsiders" (i.e., people not living off AGW grants) who have taken that look for themselves and they all come away shaking their heads. Maybe you would as well. I doubt if we will ever know.

[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

 

[zdas04]

SnarkySparky,
53 minutes of video and that is all you got? What utter garbage.
[ul]
[li]Page 2: He has a bachelor of science in geology. Not exactly related. So geology is not a part of climate science? Since when? I thought all earth sciences were included, it is after all a complicated subject. And even if it wasn't, so what? No PhD from East Anglica so you can discount him out of hand?[/li]
[li]Page 3: Displays his chops as a lover of the environment. Good for him. Do you even have a point here?[/li]
[li]Page 4: Titled methodology. NO actual methodology listed.Kind of nit picky[/li]
[li]Page 5: Die photo of an integrated circuit. ??? ??? ???????? I guess just to impress ? So far we are 5/7 of the way down your list and none of your problems are with the data he presented, just attacking the man.[/li]
[li]Page 6: Questions whether the climate is warming at all. I though all have agreed on this point.What ever made you think that any portion of this discussion was "settled"? If someone doesn't accept that the data is valid, how can he accept any conclusion from the data?[/li]
[li]Page 7- Anecdotal selections in both time and place displayed as though it has meaning WRT global temperature.This, like the rest of your list is simply petty deflecting. "Don't look at the man behind the curtain" kind of lameness[/li]
[/ul]

As to your second post, the data is altered between the recording instrument and the first dataset by the owner of the recording station data. These alterations are destructive and not published. They state that the reason is that so many of the data records are corrupted and need to be converted from impossible values to null values, but that is not nearly all of it. They also "correct" for the "heat island effect" and other systemic discrepencies, but every station has its own magnitude of correction based again on unpublished algorithms.

I know of no such scientific work.

My God, then it can't have happened, because you have exhibited such a vast knowledge of this subject. Take a look at the dataset that Berkeley has developed to look at the second tier sources (after pre-processing, because the data before pre-processing is destroyed out of hand and always has been, even before this became more of a political discussion than a scientific one) and tries to reconcile edits. They have worked incredibly hard at applying a layer of lacquer to this turd and made it all shiny, but it is still a piece of crap.

As to telling people how to calibrate temperature instruments, just don't. The people who own those stations are actually doing the best job they can with the available funds and they know very well how to get the best data out of their instruments, and would love to if they had the money. The money goes into feeding the data into computer models and vast egos, not into data collection.

[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

 

[IRstuff]

"No. I have no obligation to dig up those drives from my storeroom to spoon feed you data that you will then accuse me of having manipulated. "

amusing, you require massive amounts of velidation, but you provide nothing in return. At the very minimum, you could at least point to your specific data source. Is that really asking for too much? You insult engineers and scientists and you claim that you are under attack. I can see why you think there's a conspiracy. I have accused you of nothing, yet you accuse everyone of manipulation.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[zdas04]

IRStuff,
The data sources are readily available. If I list them you will accuse me of cherry picking. If you do the tiny bit of work required to find them yourself then they won't be tainted by links I've provided. I started out in the first AGW thread nearly 5 years ago with a clear goal of convincing people of what I saw as facts. The reaction was a hundred lists like SnarkySparky provided, sneering at the sources without any objective discussion of the content. I got so beaten down by trying to combat that sleezy tactic that I wrote One Engineers Perspective on Global Warming and then shortly thereafter stopped posting on eng-tips.com about AGW for a year. That self-imposed exile ended late last year and I find that if anything the proponents of this hoax have gotten more strident and desperate. Maybe I should have spent longer on the sidelines.

You are the one that insists on a conspiracy. I don't need there to be a worldwide conspiracy of shadowy characters in lock step. I can envision the same outcome with a small number of disreputable politicians (in both the government and academia) controlling the agenda by controlling the purse strings. Fortunes have been made on the back on this hoax and the people making the largest fortunes are the cronies and family of the most corrupt politicians. Much like the fortunes that were made by the cronies and family of corrupt politicians during Reconstruction after the U.S. Civil War.

[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

 

[snarkysparky]

No a BS in geology isn't terribly relevant to atmospheric physics.

Seven pages into his presentation that appears very much like a used car salesman wrote it with nothing but irrelevancies indicates he is not intending the document to be a genuine discussion of facts and causes but instead meant to catalyze emotions among those who prefer not to think.

Yes it is yet another 'sales' pitch to cast doubt with next to nothing of scientific relevance included.

So there are in your opinion NO data sources remaining that are untainted that could be used scientifically to create another temp reconstruction to balance the argument ??

I said "I know of no such scientific work"

You "My God, then it can't have happened, because you have exhibited such a vast knowledge of this subject."

I think if you reread what I wrote you will find I made no claim to exhaustive knowledge. I ask for sources. Do you have any??

Is seems you have staked out a convenient position yet again. You claim NO data remains in raw form to form a rebuttal.

 

[zdas04]

SnarkySparky,
You will not accept any link I give you, but you complain that I don't give you links to complain about? LOOK FOR YOURSELF. I found the data sets. I found explanations of how (and why) the data is "processed" between the instruments and the "raw" data set. You can too. I am not going to waste any time providing links that you will only sneer at. Pull your head out of your agenda and LOOK FOR YOURSELF. The video was full of actual, factual comparisons of NASA publications at two different times purported to have come from the same raw data that have significantly different shapes. I know what conclusions I draw from that. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS BASED ON YOUR OWN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. Don't let rconnor, IRStuff (who have both looked at the data enough to satisfy themselves), CNN, or the IPPC think for you. By the way, the most comprehensive set of paleo-data on climate has come from ... wait for it ... the geologists.

[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

 

[snarkysparky]

I am not a climate scientist. I don't want climate scientist telling me how to design circuits. I lack the training to interpret the data. I do understand data assimilation to a certain extent, things such as state variable estimators utilizing any correlated data to improve estimates. And yes geologists just might be the ones to provide historical measured quantities and the science to map those to historical temperatures. So I don't get into the science because I know that any real actual understanding of it would take a large amount of work. Starting from raw data sources and understanding how they were mapped to temperature and corrections that would be needed for KNOWN biases. Then doing the best possible job at combining these overlapping in time but not in location series into an estimate for Earths temp. It would be a full time job for years to actually be able to make completely independent judgments.

Too much for a hobby for me, but not I would think for serious persons interested in balancing the discussion. Where are the expert fully done studies completely independent from the 'tainted' work done so far by the climate scientists who are on the take or just ignorant that show a lesser warming rate or none at all.

As far as I know there are no such credible studies. You would think somebody could fund the work.
I will tell you my opinion about why there are no such things available. The guys with the money to fund them or the time to donate know their results would not be that much different. So people who do not like the policy trend are left to just jabbing sticks into the only body of credible research there is. And usually their efforts do not take on the real question directly they seem to only aim at stimulating emotional response to cloud the issues.

Hey i would love MMGW to be proven wrong and we would have all the time we want to burn fossil fuels without worrying about serious climate change. But there just isn't any science that shows a different historical trend or that demonstrates increased CO2 will not alter the heat balance.

In short I take the lack of credible research pointing the other way as a vindication of current climate science.

 

[IRstuff]

"I can envision the same outcome with a small number of disreputable politicians (in both the government and academia) controlling the agenda by controlling the purse strings. "

This is, by definition, a conspiracy. And if more than one government is involved, then it is a world-wide conspiracy. Based on you allegations, then those that stand to lose money would, and should, go out and buy their own politicians, particularly in Russia, since their economy is so heavily dependent on oil revenues. Given the position of incumbency and world-wide oil revenues, the fossil fuel lobbyists should always have the upper hand.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[cloa]

Search

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

for ten of thousand of credible research on climate research as against the limited number of loud mouth climate scientists with no scientific credibility because all their predictions are failures.

http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=1529

Use translation assistance for Engineers forum

Note the rules include No Student posting

 

[snarkysparky]

The report can be downloaded.

https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/12-04-15_why_scientists_disagree.pdf

I skimmed this for any actual science or references to a scientific work countering climate reconstructions or CO2 forcing but found none. I didn't read the whole thing because I saw so much propaganda in it that I categorized it as more of the same.
Now if anyone actually finds scientific references to these I would be glad to try to read it but I won't waste any more time looking for a pearl in a pile of dung.

 

[GregLocock]

Any particular reason why you have gone off topic? This thread is about climate data. Not CO2. Do try to keep up.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rconnor]

As to me claiming a conspiracy, I don't see where that is relevant in this thread.

You encouraged us to watch video that accuses the international scientific community with scientific misconduct, data manipulation and something between incompetence (at best) or purposeful fraud.

You have made several comments echoing this sentiment. You’ve also insinuated that the motivation for this half century (well >100 years if we go back to Arrhenius), international scientific fraud by thousands of scientists, ~197 national scientific academies/institutions, hundreds of universities and dozens of peer-reviewed journals is money and this is all driven by governments desire for more power.

As IRstuff has indicated, this is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theory. Furthermore, this conspiracy is absolutely crucial to the point you are trying to make (the planet really isn’t warming, all this data is made up). If the conspiracy (that all these scientists/governments are fudging data for money/power) is wrong, then so is your point (the planet really isn’t warming, all this data is made up). So it is absolutely relevant in this thread.

But we haven’t purely been addressing the conspiracy, we’ve also addressed your point directly. Temperature records are not the only thing indicating a warming planet – ice extent/volume, sea level, ocean heat content, humidity, glacial mass all indicate the exact same thing – it’s really warming. You have failed to address this point and then accused us of focusing on your conspiracy.

I have no obligation to dig up those drives from my storeroom to spoon feed you data that you will then accuse me of having manipulated. Not going to do it. Do your own analysis and see if the data stands up to the sniff test.

Isn’t it annoying when people that don’t really have an understanding of the subject accuse you of manipulating data and then refuse to actually do any science themselves! …sound at all familiar to you?

particularly in Russia, since their economy is so heavily dependent on oil revenues.

That might not be a good suggestion, IRstuff. Russia’s own metrological institute (RIHMI-WDC) also shows warming. Obviously Russia is also faking the warming, thus hurting their main revenue stream!

(For those interested, this link, that I already linked before, provides the temperature data for a number of different countries, all of which, according to some, are faking the warming.)

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

I do. BEST. The only real attempt to prove the warming is all made up actually proved the warming was real. Whoops.

(Of course, after praising Richard Muller for trying to discover the "truth" that all the warming was made up, "skeptics" quickly changed their tone once his results showed nearly the exact same thing as the other data sets. Before the results were released, Anthony Watts, owner of the "skeptic" blog WUWT, stated "I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong" (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/]source[/url])...then quickly changed his tone after seeing it validated the warming.)

 

[FoxRox]

I hope no one minds if I piggyback this thread. I didn't think we needed another AGW topic, but this is related and interesting. I've seen several articles on this in the past week, and it's hard to tell if there's something to it. The AGW crowd has jumped on it like there's a murderer in their house threatening their family. The Telegraph article is part of the original round of reports. The WP article is a response/rebuttal that touches on both sides, although it's quite clear where the author stands.

In a nutshell, new solar research indicates that we're getting close to experiencing a solar minimum, which was last seen in the seventeenth century. Something about giant waves inside the sun being perfectly out of phase. This may or may not cause a mini ice age similar to the one that occurred at that time. The AGW people say CO2 effects will dwarf the effects of the solar minimum. So what do you think? Legit or propaganda? Paid by Koch brothers or pure as the driven snow?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...o-earth-is-not-heading-toward-a-mini-ice-age/

 

[rb1957]

I believe there's research out there that says something like "yes, the AGW is masking the cooler globe".

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cranky108]

If you look at the number of people who want to talk about AGW, then it seems like we do need another thread on this topic.

Lets face it, talking is much better then throwing stones.

 

[FoxRox]

@rb1957

I do believe I've seen it claimed that AGW is outpacing the current lower level of solar activity, but this new research is not about that. We're talking about a major solar event in 15 to 25 years. They're saying a 60 percent reduction in solar activity. I don't know if that translates one to one for the energy received by Earth, but it sounds pretty serious if it is true.

Also of note is that the solar researchers themselves did not make any conclusions about possible effects to the climate in 2035. They simply compared the predicted event to the one in the in the 17th century, which did cause a mini ice age.

 

[Maui]

A continuing trend that I have observed over the past 30 years in reading publications in refereed scientific journals is that fewer and fewer authors feel the need to include enough information in their articles so that the reader is able to derive the author's results simply based on the original data they provide and the methodology presented in the paper. The authors apparently expect their audience to "trust" their interpretation of the data and the manner in which it has been adjusted in a variety of ways. Years ago when this was not typically the case and the reader had the opportunity to perform their own analysis, errors could be caught. I recall one paper where I was able to identify several errors in the equations themselves that the authors had used for data reduction. I made the lead author aware of these errors, and in a subsequent paper that I published mentioned the same. And that lead author was angry with me for years afterwards for publicly revealing his mistakes.

I believe that one of the reasons why this trend continues to occur is that the (unpaid) referees the journals use to review the submitted papers often do not want to take the time to wade through all of the data and equations to get to the point the author is attempting to make. They want a clean, clear-cut message where there is an obvious flow in the paper stating the issue at hand, the approach used by the authors, and the conclusions obtained. These papers often sit on the very bottom of the pile of things these reviewers are expected to do, and since they are not paid for this work it is something that they are not highly motivated to dedicate significant time to. For this reason they can gloss over or not inquire enough about important aspects of the author's analysis. Since most of the detailed analysis that was expected in the past is no longer included, are we to simply accept what the authors conclude based on their arguments and credentials? This is very dangerous in my opinion. If we accept what someone tells us based on the concept that they are the experts and we "mere mortals" couldn't possibly understand the complexities involved in their analysis or interpretation of the data, then something is very wrong. Either they have made some questionable assumptions which they have not properly shared, they can't be bothered to actually compile the data and equations so that we can properly review their work, their methodology is flawed and they don't want to give the reader an opportunity to find their mistakes, they are trying to sell us something, etc.

Good scientific theories stand the test of time. The bad ones are relegated to the dust bin. It will be interesting to see where the global warming theories end up.

Maui

 

[GregLocock]

FoxRox, they don't mean a 60% reduction in energy output, they mean a bignum reduction in the number of sunspots. Afaik the suns radiated power, on average, varies by one per cent or so over hundreds of years. However the energetic particles emitted as the solar wind, which cause all sorts of stuff they don't model, are more variable. I suspect that in 200 years the albedo modelling boys will be saying 'ha,and they thought it was that trace gas carbon something or other'.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?