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 18 Jan 2010 02:34 On Jan 17, 10:39 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/17/10 8:34 PM, Mike Jr wrote: > > > > > On Jan 17, 2:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/17/10 11:07 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:31 +1030, Surfer wrote: > > >>> So, you're so ignorant of physics that you think that melting ice ALWAYS > >>> proves warming. > > >> Gee, Marvin, must have been all that extra salt! > > > Sam, > > NASA says that it was the winds blowing the ice south where it then > > melted. But both you and Surfer know this because I have stated it > > before and supplied the NASA link. "But it can't be true". > > > If you read my links, you will see that John Coleman's report was > > based on an audit of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) > > archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center and therefore > > also by the Hadley Climatic Research Unit, and not on climategate e- > > mails. > > > Marvin, > > Sam is far from ignorant. But you cannot show somebody something if > > they refuse to look. "It just can't be true". But it is. > > > --Mike Jr. > > Are you acting as an intermediary, because Marvin Plonked me? Just trying to reason with you Sam.
From: Mike Jr on 18 Jan 2010 02:38 On Jan 17, 11:28 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:34:13 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > > > > <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Jan 17, 2:07 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 1/17/10 11:07 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: > > >> > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:31 +1030, Surfer wrote: > > >> > So, you're so ignorant of physics that you think that melting ice ALWAYS > >> > proves warming. > > >> Gee, Marvin, must have been all that extra salt! > > >Sam, > > NASA says that it was the winds blowing the ice south where it then > >melted. But both you and Surfer know this because I have stated it > >before and supplied the NASA link. > > From the link you gave:http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html > > ".....Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past > two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions > set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the > Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he > said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in > the warmer waters...." > > That is a reasonable explanation for the RECORD loss discussed at the > link for the two years concerned. > > But the STEADY long decline could only be due to temperature, as I > havn't seen a steady long term increase in winds and currents > reported. Steady long decline? As in monotonic? The data says otherwise. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm 2007 was the worst, 2008 better, 2009 back to normal. --Mike Jr.
From: Mike Jr on 18 Jan 2010 09:32 On Jan 17, 1:50 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:15:14 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr > > <n00s...(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 herehttp://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.pn I find the nsidc graphs interesting. A couple of points: 1. The satellite records go back to only 2002. Where are they getting data for 1978 to 2001? Why not earlier than 1978? 2. As the satellite data (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/ seaice_extent.htm ) indicates, there are some year to year variations in the seasonal arctic sea ice extent. What do you think the natural variation in the seasonal arctic sea ice extent is? What do you think the arctic sea ice extent was in 1958-9? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ 3. How do you know that the mean over 60 years is really 13.4 million sq. kilometers? Any chance that the data has been cherry picked? > > 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 Where are you getting these numbers? I look at the Jason and TOPIX sea level numbers (http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/ sl_noib_global_sm.jpg ) and I get a rate of 3.2 +- 0.4 mm/year. Since 1900, sea level has been rising at about 20cm per century, and hasnt changed much recently as seen in the graph below. http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/700px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png The slope is pretty constant and has even flattened since 2006. If you want to see the big picture, look here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png Note that from 15,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago, sea level rose about 14mm/year which is more than four times faster than the current rise rate of 3.3mm/year. Sea levels have been rising for the last 20,000 years. There has been a lot of abuse of the sea level data and scientist should know better. > > Giant Antarctic glacier is thinninghttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090814100105.htm Regarding Antarctica, "SEA water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming that could bring higher world ocean levels, first tests showed yesterday. Sensors lowered through three holes drilled in the Fimbul Ice Shelf showed the sea water is still around freezing and not at higher temperatures widely blamed for the break-up of 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, the most northerly part of the frozen continent in West Antarctica. "The water under the ice shelf is very close to the freezing point," Ole Anders Noest of the Norwegian Polar Institute wrote after drilling through the Fimbul, which is between 250m and 400m thick. "This situation seems to be stable, suggesting that the melting under the ice shelf does not increase," he wrote of the first drilling cores." Read the rest here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/antarctic-sea-water-shows-no-sign-of-warming/story-fn3dxity-1225818314421 Regarding GHCN, "So as we can see, of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years (red circle). But its not just any station, its a special one. Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data." http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/ The peninsula sticks way out into warmer water. Just bad luck right? Put the pieces together; the fix is in. > > The global lower troposphere temperature anomaly is increasinghttp://images.intellicast.com/App_Images/Article/125_2.gif Regarding lower troposphere temperature anomaly, I will first ask you to look at the scale of your graph. The super El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) of 1998 managed to push the temperature anomaly up to a whopping eight tenths of a single degree Celsius. 8/10 of a single degree. I am somehow underwhelmed. Here is the latest data from UAH MSU http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#UAH%20MSU "Temperature Variation From Average: Lower Troposphere: Global: December 2009: +0.28 °C Northern Hemisphere: +0.33 °C Southern Hemisphere: +0.24 °C Peak recorded anomaly: February, 1998: +0.76 °C Current relative to peak recorded: -0.48 °C DECADAL TREND: Global: +0.13 °C Northern Hemisphere: +0.19 °C Southern Hemisphere: +0.07 °C Last update: January 7, 2010" A decadal trend of +0.13 degree Celsius. We are going to fry! > > 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. If the world is warming, it isn't by much. What do you think the natural variation in temperature is over a century? Two centuries? Fifty centuries? The key question, the question that if we knew the answer would tell us if AGW is valid or disproved completely, is simple. What is the trend in specific humidity above 850 hPa? If the answer is increasing as CO2 and surface temperature go up then AGW is vindicated. If constant or decreasing then the AGW hypothesis is null and void. By the way, Dr. Mann would agree with this because a key requirement of his model, and all of the IPCC climate models, is that the specific humidity above 850 hPa must go up for there to be a tipping point. If decreasing then there are strong negative feedbacks at work. What is so special about 850 hPa? This is the top of the convection zone; the level of the cloud tops. It is here where evaporated water condenses and releases its latent heat. If the air above 850 hPa is dry then there is nothing to stop this latent heat from radiating out into space. Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking, & Michael Pook published a peer- reviewed paper in Theoretical and Applied Climatology 26 February 2009 titled "Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data". http://springerlink.com/content/m2054qq6126802g8/ Read it and weep. I know that I am not going to convince you because you have faith. I just want to give you a heads-up that you might be in for some disappointment. --Mike Jr.
From: erschroedinger on 18 Jan 2010 12:00 On Jan 16, 6:47 am, Mike Jr <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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". You, sir, are a liar. > > 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. > No independent group has ever verified this. > 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. > His only degree is in journalism. > 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. John is a fool. As are those who believe him. > > 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. Idiot. >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. No, it just means you are stupid.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Jan 2010 12:01
On 1/18/10 1:38 AM, Mike Jr wrote: > On Jan 17, 11:28 pm, Surfer<n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:34:13 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr >> >> >> >> <n00s...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> On Jan 17, 2:07 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/17/10 11:07 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote: >> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:31 +1030, Surfer wrote: >> >>>>> So, you're so ignorant of physics that you think that melting ice ALWAYS >>>>> proves warming. >> >>>> Gee, Marvin, must have been all that extra salt! >> >>> Sam, >>> NASA says that it was the winds blowing the ice south where it then >>> melted. But both you and Surfer know this because I have stated it >>> before and supplied the NASA link. >> >> From the link you gave:http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html >> >> ".....Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past >> two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions >> set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the >> Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic," he >> said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in >> the warmer waters...." >> >> That is a reasonable explanation for the RECORD loss discussed at the >> link for the two years concerned. >> >> But the STEADY long decline could only be due to temperature, as I >> havn't seen a steady long term increase in winds and currents >> reported. > > Steady long decline? As in monotonic? The data says otherwise. > > http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm > > 2007 was the worst, 2008 better, 2009 back to normal. > > --Mike Jr. Thirty-year averages, Mike... not year by year. Learn the Difference Between Weather and Climate! The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time (at least 30 years). In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate. |