NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quick Question
Next: Foundations of operations management, second canadian edition 2e ritzman malhotra krajwsky solutions manual
From: Mike Jr on 16 Jan 2010 06:47 On Jan 16, 1:02 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/15/10 6:16 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 15, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/15/10 8:04 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >>> "Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed > >>> Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero > > [snip] > > > While the effort was inspired by the debacle at UAE, the analysis did > > not depend on UAE e-mails. Rather an analysis was performed on the > > Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) itself. See what they > > uncovered. The detailed analyses are collected here (see links): > >http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ > > > "NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the > > global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smiths analysis > > of NOAAs GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the worlds > > stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high > > altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be > > cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the > > sea and to airport tarmacs." > > >http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf > > > --Mike Jr. > > What does it all mean, Mike? That Hansen and company have manipulated the surface temperature data in several ways to exaggerate the recent warming trend and to eliminate past warming trends such as the 1940's "warm blip". Anthony Watts started his surface stations project (http:// www.surfacestations.org/) where he and his network of volunteers set out to survey "every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a high quality network to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA." What they found, with over 82% of the network surveyed, was appalling; 91% of the stations had siting issues that resulted in elevated temperature readings, 87% were poor or very poor; examples, on roofs, next to air conditioner heat exchanges, on asphalt. Not to worry we were told, GISS and NOAA took steps to adjust the data to account for the urban heat island effect. John Coleman, founder of the Weather channel, didn't take them, as gentlemen, at their word. What John and his team found was that the stations dropped were the ones showing no warming. Instead, these sites had their values interpolated using values from sites that are further south, at lower elevations, and more urbanized. As far as adjustments, what John found was: "The data centers then performed some final adjustments to the gathered data before final analysis. These adjustments are in some cases frequent and undocumented. Examining raw data versus processed final data shows numerous examples where the adjusted data shows a warming trend where the raw data had little change. In many cases this is accomplished through a cooling of early data in the records, sometimes even those designated as unadjusted as in the case of Central Park. Central Park for example was inexplicably cooled up to 3F in the early records but with no recent changes resulting in almost double the claimed urban warming (4.5F vs 2.5F).." Satellite data disagrees with the GISS temperature data: "Satellite data centers will also release their assessments of monthly and global temperature. For reasons we will discuss their results will be less remarkable. This has been the trend in recent years. For instance NOAA announced that for the globe June 2009 [] was the second warmest June in 130 years falling just short of 2005. In sharp contrast to this NASA, The University of Alabama Huntsville, UAH and MSU satellite assessments had June virtually at the long term average (+0.001C or 15th coldest in 31 years) and Remote Sensing Systems, with RSS 14th coldest" So what does it mean? "The NOAA, NASA and the Hadley Center press releases should be ignored. The reason which is expanded on with case studies in the full report is that the surface based data sets have become seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment in decision making by congress or the EPA." It also means that our historical baseline for the 20th century is untrustworthy. !@#$%^&* --Mike Jr.
From: Mike Jr on 16 Jan 2010 06:52 On Jan 16, 5:48 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:02:54 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >On 1/15/10 6:16 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > >> On Jan 15, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 1/15/10 8:04 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > > >>>> "Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed > >>>> Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero > >> [snip] > > >> While the effort was inspired by the debacle at UAE, the analysis did > >> not depend on UAE e-mails. Rather an analysis was performed on the > >> Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) itself. See what they > >> uncovered. The detailed analyses are collected here (see links): > >>http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ > > >> "NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the > >> global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smiths analysis > >> of NOAAs GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the worlds > >> stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high > >> altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be > >> cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the > >> sea and to airport tarmacs." > > >>http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf > > >> --Mike Jr. > > > What does it all mean, Mike? > > Ineptness? "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -- George Orwell
From: I M on 16 Jan 2010 15:39 On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:52:20 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Jan 16, 5:48 am, "I M @ good guy" <I...(a)good.guy> wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:02:54 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 1/15/10 6:16 PM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> On Jan 15, 1:27 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 1/15/10 8:04 AM, Mike Jr wrote: >> >> >>>> "Climategate: Leaked Emails Inspired Data Analyses Show Claimed >> >>>> Warming Greatly Exaggerated and NOAA not CRU is Ground Zero >> >> [snip] >> >> >> While the effort was inspired by the debacle at UAE, the analysis did >> >> not depend on UAE e-mails. Rather an analysis was performed on the >> >> Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN) itself. See what they >> >> uncovered. The detailed analyses are collected here (see links): >> >>http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/ >> >> >> "NOAA appears to play a key role as a data gatherer/gatekeeper for the >> >> global data centers at NASA and CRU. Programmer E.M. Smith's analysis >> >> of NOAA's GHCN found they systematically eliminated 75% of the world's >> >> stations with a clear bias towards removing higher latitude, high >> >> altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be >> >> cooler. The thermometers in a sense marched towards the tropics, the >> >> sea and to airport tarmacs." >> >> >>http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf >> >> >> --Mike Jr. >> >> > What does it all mean, Mike? >> >> Ineptness? > >"He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the >past, controls the future." > -- George Orwell Sorry to say I thought the spectre of socialism and Big Brother had passed until the doom and gloom socialist creeps started their bitter whining in the alt.global-warming newsgroup. Just because they are broken and failed lost souls there really is no sense in them spreading the misery to everybody else. Money needs to be going into alternate energy, but apparently none of them knows what to do or how, yet they continue to get all the money they can without offering anything in return, I would have to mean they are inept.
From: Surfer on 17 Jan 2010 01:50 On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:15:14 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >The report is available online at >http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf. > Thanks. This seems a serious report. Two salient points are: ".....When the satellites were first launched, their temperature readings were in closer agreement with the surface station data. There has been increasing divergence over time (see Klotzbach et.al. here). This divergence is consistent with evidence of an increasingly warm bias in the surface temperature record...." "....the surface based data sets have become seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment..." But unfortunately, even if both of the above statements are true, we still have to contend with the following facts. Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing: (See graph at right) http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ Larger image here http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn The global sea level is rising: http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice. The average rate of sea level rise has increased as follows: 1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year 1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year Giant Antarctic glacier is thinning http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasing http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gif This shows that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost entirely ABOVE the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly balanced above and below the axis. So the world is warming, even if the surface temperature data isn't as reliable as we'd like.
From: Marvin the Martian on 17 Jan 2010 12:07
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:31 +1030, Surfer wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:15:14 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr <n00spam(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > >>The report is available online at >>http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf. >> > Thanks. This seems a serious report. > > Two salient points are: > > ".....When the satellites were first launched, their temperature > readings were in closer agreement with the surface station data. There > has been increasing divergence over time (see Klotzbach et.al. here). > This divergence is consistent with evidence of an increasingly warm bias > in the surface temperature record...." > > "....the surface based data sets have become seriously flawed and can no > longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment..." > > But unfortunately, even if both of the above statements are true, we > still have to contend with the following facts. > > > Arctic sea ice extent is decreasing: > (See graph at right) > http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ > Larger image here > http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn > > > The global sea level is rising: > http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/ > > Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water due > to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice. The average rate > of sea level rise has increased as follows: > > 1870 - 1990 1.7 mm/year > 1990 - 2009 3.3 mm/year > > > Giant Antarctic glacier is thinning > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm > > > The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasing > http://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gif > > This shows that since 1995 the fluctuations lie almost entirely ABOVE > the zero axis, whereas several decades ago they were evenly balanced > above and below the axis. > > So the world is warming, even if the surface temperature data isn't as > reliable as we'd like. So, you're so ignorant of physics that you think that melting ice ALWAYS proves warming. Two things you need to learn: 1) Ice melts when the temperature rises above 0 C. Thus, scientist don't use ice as thermometers. You might have noticed that. You ARE using ice as a thermometers because you don't know any better. 2) Ice has been melting since the last ice age ended 25,000 years ago. During this period there have been climate changes both colder and warmer. This constant quoting of melting ice by the AGW cultist is both bad thermo and one big post hoc fallacy. |