Hambone10
Hooter
Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle
|
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Yeah, but if you don't cast more doubt on it than what you do on NASA and the NOAA, you're grasping at straws IMO.
The data comes from NASA and NOAA, not this guy. You can cast doubt on his opinion, but as I said, the data is not an opinion.
more on this below...
(06-04-2015 04:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: Why does data change?
Nothing False About Temperature Data
Quote:The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends, has addressed these types of adjustments several times before. NOAA addresses the subject in a Q&A on its website:
Q: What are some of the temperature discrepancies you found in the climate record and how have you compensated for them?
Over time, the thousands of weather stations around the world have undergone changes that often result in sudden or unrealistic discrepancies in observed temperatures requiring a correction. For the U.S.-based stations, we have access to detailed station history that helps us identify and correct discrepancies. Some of these differences have simple corrections.
NOAA maintains about 1,500 monitoring stations, and accumulates data from more than a thousand other stations in countries around the world (many national and international organizations share this type of data freely). There are actually fewer monitoring stations today than there used to be; modern stations have better technology and are accessible in real time, unlike some older outposts no longer in use. The raw, unadjusted data from these stations is available from many sources, including the international collaboration known as the Global Historical Climatology Network and others.
As the years go by, all those stations undergo various types of changes: This can include shifts in how monitoring is done, improvements in technology, or even just the addition or subtraction of nearby buildings.
For example, a new building constructed next to a monitoring station could cast a shadow over a station, or change wind patterns, in such ways that could affect the readings. Also, the timing of temperature measurements has varied over time. And in the 1980s, most U.S. stations switched from liquid-in-glass to electronic resistance thermometers, which could both cool maximum temperature readings and warm minimum readings.
Monitoring organizations like NOAA use data from other stations nearby to try and adjust for these types of issues, either raising or lowering the temperature readings for a given station. This is known as homogenization. The most significant adjustment around the world, according to NOAA, is actually for temperatures taken over the oceans, and that adjustment acts to lower rather than raise the global temperature trend.
The homogenization methods used have been validated and peer-reviewed. For example, a 2012 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research confirmed the effectiveness of the homogenization processes for NOAA’s network of stations, and even noted that “it is likely that maximum temperature trends have been underestimated.” In other words, there may have actually been more warming than NOAA has reported.
Sorry, but this doesn't pass the smell test.... and peer-reviewed simply means that other people in the same business find logic in what they are doing... well of COURSE they do. That's like asking the guy you think is a fool to peer-review other climate denier's studies. Shockingly, they're likely to agree.
I understand the point being made above, but in my opinion, all that does is bring into greater doubt the reliability of previous data... I'm not talking about observed data from 50 or even perhaps 100 years ago, but of data from hundreds or in some cases thousands of years ago necessary to create the sort of 'situations' that create this global concern. If we can't rely on observations of 30 years ago, how can we rely on 'estimates' from 30,000 years ago?
The point against global warming is primarily that the specificity necessary to reach the conclusions that are being reached about fractions of degrees of warming over dozens and even hundreds of years doesn't exist... and the fact that NOAA and NASA are still going back today and adjusting the 'accepted data' that we all supposedly agreed on yesterday just reinforces rather than dispels that position. If a building's shadow could cause us to change our data, couldn't also a previously unknown but massive meteor passing between us and the sun or a massive sun flare or a volcano cause the same sort of adjustment in the other direction? Obviously I'm not an expert in this arena... but I'm pretty skilled in probabilities and statistics... and unreliable data, regardless of the direction of the adjustments, is unreliable. Simple example, you go from perhaps a 0.5 degree increase in temperature with a 90% confidence level to a 0.6 degree increase with an 85% confidence level.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 05:15 PM by Hambone10.)
|
|