Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
NOAA Tampers with Data
Author Message
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #1
NOAA Tampers with Data
Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?
06-04-2015 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #2
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

The ice caps didnt evaporate by 2012 like the alarmist were selling, so they have to go back and make it colder in the past, so they can now say the ice caps will be melting by 2025.

It's hard to sell global warming when Boston harbor has a 3 story pile of snow that has yet to melt from this past winter.
06-04-2015 02:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #3
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 02:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

The ice caps didnt evaporate by 2012 like the alarmist were selling, so they have to go back and make it colder in the past, so they can now say the ice caps will be melting by 2025.

One guy, U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski, said the arctics summer ice could disappear by 2013.

And Al Gore said in 2007 that "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years."

(06-04-2015 02:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  It's hard to sell global warming when Boston harbor has a 3 story pile of snow that has yet to melt from this past winter.

Not if you have half a brain.

Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

But if you're like this clown...all bets are off.

[Image: i77wg.jpg]
06-04-2015 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #4
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?
06-04-2015 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #5
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

The ice caps didnt evaporate by 2012 like the alarmist were selling, so they have to go back and make it colder in the past, so they can now say the ice caps will be melting by 2025.

One guy, U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski, said the arctics summer ice could disappear by 2013.

And Al Gore said in 2007 that "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years."

(06-04-2015 02:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  It's hard to sell global warming when Boston harbor has a 3 story pile of snow that has yet to melt from this past winter.

Not if you have half a brain.

Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

But if you're like this clown...all bets are off.

[Image: i77wg.jpg]

Pretty much all of this. There really isn't any valid evidence on the conservative side, and I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

The saddest thing about this issue is that there is probably a 60% group of americans who could come to an agreement on how to handle this issue, but they're just split up into both Dems and Republicans.
06-04-2015 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #6
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 03:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

The ice caps didnt evaporate by 2012 like the alarmist were selling, so they have to go back and make it colder in the past, so they can now say the ice caps will be melting by 2025.

One guy, U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski, said the arctics summer ice could disappear by 2013.

And Al Gore said in 2007 that "One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years."

(06-04-2015 02:15 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  It's hard to sell global warming when Boston harbor has a 3 story pile of snow that has yet to melt from this past winter.

Not if you have half a brain.

Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

But if you're like this clown...all bets are off.

[Image: i77wg.jpg]

Pretty much all of this. There really isn't any valid evidence on the conservative side, and I simply don't find claims of some worldwide and wholly thorough academic conspiracy believable, especially when it's clear opposing researchers are all industry paid.

The saddest thing about this issue is that there is probably a 60% group of americans who could come to an agreement on how to handle this issue, but they're just split up into both Dems and Republicans.

What's the logic behind adjusting the readings? Were the originals wrong? Why?
06-04-2015 03:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #7
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.
06-04-2015 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #8
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.

If they had a clear reason for the adjustments, they should have included it in the article. There was no reason given which is what caused me to ask the question.

I find it interesting that you automatically accept the adjustments without question. Did it really take them 18 years to determine that their measurements were incorrect? Why did it take so long? What prompted them to verify the readings in the first place? How can the be certain that their adjustments are correct at this point? There are far too many questions not addressed by NOAA regarding the reasoning behind the adjustments.

I don't have to 'go the extra mile' to convince anybody of anything. I'm simply asking a question, which according to some Dem lawmakers should make me a criminal for questioning their so-called "settled science" that seems to need endless revisions to arrive at the desired conclusions. Changing information, especially something as simple as a temperature reading, naturally raises questions that NOAA and other scientific associations have been more that a little hesitant to provide clear and simple answers to. Sensational doomsday claims that have failed to come to fruition don't help to lend credibility to the cause.
06-04-2015 03:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ummechengr Offline
C'mon....really!?!?!
*

Posts: 4,274
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation: 221
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location: Memphis, TN
Post: #9
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.



Global Warming: Follow the money

Quote:Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. The federal government — which will gain unprecedented regulatory power if climate legislation is passed — has funded scientific research to the tune of $32.5 billion since 1989, according the Science and Public Policy Institute. That is an amount that dwarfs research contributions from oil companies and utilities, which have historically funded both sides of the debate.

Mann, for example, has received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator — including $500,000 in federal stimulus money while he was under investigation for his Climategate e-mails.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 03:54 PM by ummechengr.)
06-04-2015 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #10
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
Just read the NOAA paper and about half the supporting documents and studies. Article doesn't explain why NOAA is revising the data because the NOAA paper nor the studies sufficiently give the reasons for the revisions either. One supporting study mentions the lack of Arctic observations in the previous data set as opposed to the current data set, but fails to mention how they determine what the readings should have been in the previous data set. Numerous supporting studies mention the El Nino, and a need to adjust for it, but don't mention any adjustments for the La Nina events. Another reason given is the difference in readings from ships and from ocean buoys. While it is mentioned that the ocean buoys are more accurate, it seems that weight was given to ship readings due to increased shipping activity leading to a larger area in which readings were taken. The real kicker is the desire to include the record warm 2014 in the new data but apparently not in the old data set in which is being directly compared to. The net effect seems to be replacing years in which there were cooler temperature readings with years with higher readings while not adjusting the timeframe of the study and arriving at a conclusion that shows an "additional global warming of a few hundredths of a degree Celsius per decade over the 21st century is evident". All they did was to create a new base period to compare the revised data to. The reasons given a lacking, and the most striking of those reasons is an assumed "underestimation of polar temperatures" due to a limited number of observations, without giving the grounds as to why the observations weren't sufficient.
06-04-2015 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #11
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

You're using the opinion of a known climate change denier...who's been less than honest in the past

Scientist Slams Daily Caller For Distorting His Research To Suggest Climate Change Is Fake
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2015 04:17 PM by Redwingtom.)
06-04-2015 04:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #12
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 04:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

You're using the opinion of a known climate change denier...who's been less than honest in the past

Scientist Slams Daily Caller For Distorting His Research To Suggest Climate Change Is Fake

What does THAT matter. A broken clock is still right twice a day... and yes, a climate change denier is going to be looking for things like this.

The question is, did or did not NASA adjust the previous 'hiatus' data and if so, why? That shouldn't involve anyone's opinion. If they did, then that raises some serious questions. If not, then throw out the complaint. You don't throw out the complaint because of 'who brings it'.
06-04-2015 04:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #13
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 04:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

You're using the opinion of a known climate change denier...who's been less than honest in the past

Scientist Slams Daily Caller For Distorting His Research To Suggest Climate Change Is Fake

It's irrelevant to why NOAA changed the data. The data was changed, that's a fact. I just looked over the study and supporting documents to try to find a concrete reason why it was changed and I couldn't, other than of course that new data and more observations are available now. That does little to clarify how they arrived at an accurate readjustment for decades old data.
06-04-2015 04:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #14
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 04:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 04:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:07 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Settled science my ass

Quote:“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable


Why is it necessary to adjust temperature readings? was the equipment faulty?

You're using the opinion of a known climate change denier...who's been less than honest in the past

Scientist Slams Daily Caller For Distorting His Research To Suggest Climate Change Is Fake

What does THAT matter. A broken clock is still right twice a day... and yes, a climate change denier is going to be looking for things like this.

The question is, did or did not NASA adjust the previous 'hiatus' data and if so, why? That shouldn't involve anyone's opinion. If they did, then that raises some serious questions. If not, then throw out the complaint. You don't throw out the complaint because of 'who brings it'.

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.
06-04-2015 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #15
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
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.
06-04-2015 04:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
200yrs2late Offline
Resident Parrothead
*

Posts: 15,328
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 767
I Root For: East Carolina
Location: SE of disorder
Post: #16
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(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.

This is the gist of the NOAA study referenced in the OP as well as increased number of observations over the Arctic. They are increasing weight given to ocean buoy readings to cool past observations at the same time as adjusting for more numerous Arctic readings which show accelerated warming due to a past "underestimation" of Arctic readings. The net effect can only be exactly what the very gentleman's opinion that you discredit by him being a climate change denier is. That is that adjusting past temps down, and increasing current temps leads to a steeper curve.

The problem with the explanation you posted is that it's more reasons that data collections should be updated with regards to current observations, not revisions of past data. If a building is put up next to a NOAA observations site, move the site, don't continue to collect data for a period of time and then revise it.

Ever look at a map of the US stations? There are 114 of them, and they aren't exactly in metropolitan areas that have experienced artificial warming through construction and growth - a reason frequently given for data revision.
06-04-2015 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #17
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.)
06-04-2015 05:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,084
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 3551
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #18
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 05:13 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and peer-reviewed simply means that other people in the same business find logic in what they are doing... well of COURSE they do.

As a point on peer review, the first person to peer review Sir Isaac Newton basically said he was full of crap.
06-04-2015 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
maximus Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,681
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 1280
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location:
Post: #19
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.
There is exponentially more money to be made by claiming global errrr climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate
06-04-2015 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #20
RE: NOAA Tampers with Data
(06-04-2015 06:53 PM)maximus Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 03:15 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 03:11 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 02:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
Quote:“It’s just encrusted in dirt and grime, and it’s insulated by that,” Dennehy said. “Some parts of it are still ice.”
...

The last remaining pile once stood six stories high and covered four acres. It's now about 30 feet high and 100 feet wide.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/...story.html

It's not the dirt and grime that are insulating the ice. Dirt and grime on top of it actually speeds the melting as it accelerates heat absorption. Ice itself is an extremely efficient insulator. Pile snow high enough and the melting and re-freezing will turn the outside to ice and actually improve insulation.

The length of time it has taken to melt has nothing to do with global warming, and more to do with the significant late season snowfall totals.




I'll ask my original question again. Why is NOAA adjusting temperature readings? Was the equipment faulty?

I don't know, but I'm assuming that they have a response to that claim, and that you should have probably found it out before you made this thread. At this point, with any dozens of false and wholly misleading claims, like the 'the average temperature has dropped for 17 years' claim, you should probably go the extra mile in order to convince anyone.

There is a lot of money to be made being a scientist saying anything negative about Climate Change, and the problem is that too many of them have been nonsense.
There is exponentially more money to be made by claiming global errrr climate change is happening at a catastrophic rate

You say that like it's true, when it's quite clearly false.
06-04-2015 06:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.