New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Oh that's exactly what many skeptics (at least here on PF) argue for. They want all data to be used in global mean temperature anomaly calculations...the raw data regardless of whether the instrument was known to be biased or reported an erroneous reading. They accept no adjustments like bias corrections or truncation of erroneous readings whatsoever. Any adjustment, regardless of whether it produces a more accurate dataset or not, is fraudulent...period.

That's what this whole thread is about. The "study" referred to by the OP even acknowledges that adjustment is necessary in one paragraph and then says it's all basically crap in another paragraph precisely because it was adjusted. And then ironically they use proxied datasets (ya know...datasets that use an adjustment or proxy technique) for deriving the quantity they're interest in) to show that the data can't be trusted. And, if that isn't confounding enough, almost all of their sources are from bloggers. But, the sources that actually come from reputable institutions actually show that the adjustments amount to less than 0.1C of warming over 100 years and in one case the adjustment actually showed less warming...not more.

 

Listen, I'm not a zealot. The fact that it took experts outside of the weather bureau to push bureau employees into finishing the review is unacceptable. It's also unacceptable that the quality control parameters were not tuned correctly for that site. I'm not going to make excuses for that.

 

No, they were relying on bogus data and were wrong.

 

That it took outside influence to force a corrections is de facto proof of an agenda behind the data collection itself, and nearly certainly indicates a bias in the coding of the algorithm. It is simply far too easy to poison the algorithm itself; to intentionally skew instrument calibration; influence readings even from properly calibrated instruments, and draw whatever conclusion is predetermined.

The indications of bias itself is more than enough to dismiss this nonsense, and you provide ample evidence of that by observing the need to light a fire under bureau employees to audit their findings.

 

No they aren't.

Give me a specific example of a "bias correction".

When you have more fudge than data, folks are going to call your data into question!

Average this number series:

1.0
5.1
6.73
4.864
9.6758

The problem with these is the same "problem" that has resulting in animal testing not translating to human studies, the tendency to simply dump that which doesn't conform with the desired results.

It looks to me like the models were far better at predicting the actual observed temperatures before 1997 than they are today, quite frankly, after that it looks like the wheels fell off the cart.

 

RSS temperature measurements must be bias corrected for them to be used to derive a global mean temperature anomaly.

~5.47? Or is that a trick question?

Why not include years up to 2016? When those are included the observed global mean temperature anomaly is actually right in the middle of the consensus. But yeah, most of the time the observed warming hugs the lower bound on the model envelop...or at least it did. This is why I think warming could be less than forecasted. What if I'm wrong though?

 

Why? They appear to scrap all data that runs counter to what they believe about warming.

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

 

You literally and quite purposefully just deleted the part of his post that explains why, as is your usual tactic when backed into a corner.

 

I address parts of posts that I want to. Most are such foolishness that I wouldn't waste my time on the rest. Hope that clears things up for you.

 

1.0
5.1
6.73
4.864
9.6758
It wasn't intended to be, but, with a chain of numbers when you combine them you arrive at a number that is no more exact than any number in the group. So, the correct answer is 5.5. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but when I deep dive into GW theory, I find things like this all the time. For example, the "adjustments" also known as "fudge" if the difference being cited is greater than the statistical adjustments, then you aren't reporting data you are reporting adjustments.

It was just the chart I managed to find first, but I also find this all the time. When the adherents of this theory give a range, they always push the midline of the range, which makes logical sense, but then when the observed data comes in, it barely even manages to hang at the low range.

That is what I have seen as well. For more fun, go back and dig up the early models from the UN group and then stack them against each successive year, what I found is that the earlier projections are always high and the later ones are lower, until they move from hard data to projections, and then, without fail, up it spikes.

I believe that is already a true statement.

So what?

What was the old evangelist line?
"What if reject Jesus and you are wrong?"
"What if you accept Jesus and you are wrong?"

That's the other thing that bothers me about the Global Warming Doomsday Scenario, it in many ways reads like a secular form of fire and brimstone Christianity. You have sin, virtue, hypocrisy among its expositors, indulgences and of course the looming threat of a fiery doom if we "don't get right" with the message!

Call me a cynic, but I think it's bull ****.

Now heavy metal poisoning, radioactive waste, fertilizers and pesticides, old industrial waste dumps, garbage in our oceans, pollutants in our groundwater and air, those are real issues. In a perfect world where I made the calls, the EPA would be focused on this, and pay no mind to Carbon Dioxide.

And we would do far less trade with producers that were gross polluters. Do you have any concept of how much pollution we produce in China through our trade? California patting itself on the back with its cap and trade programs, has Chinese pollution blowing over it about five days after China emits it.

The entire situation is FUBAR.

 

Mike's Trick, that Hides The Decline!

 

Because many of the satellites are polar orbiters. In fact, all microwave sounders are polar orbiters because they need a vertical beam to prevent parallax errors. They sweep past the north and south poles continuously and let Earth rotate underneath them. Polar orbiters do not move over the same spot at the same time everyday due to orbital decay. What this means is that a derived temperature reading from one spot could occur at 5:00pm in 2010, but shift to 7:00pm in 2017. Clearly that's a problem because you'd be comparing temperature readings at different times of the day. The dirunal effect must be bias corrected or the data is completely useless for climate research. Also, microwave sounders do not actually record a temperature. They record EM spectrum emissions that then get post processed by a computer algorithm to turn it into a temperature. So all satellite data is "manipulated". It has to be otherwise all you get out of it is an EM spectrum analysis which isn't going to be very useful to most people. Don't take my word for it. Learn for yourself how all of this works.

 

Tell me in your own words what these phrases are referring to. I'm challenging you here because if you're like most AGW skeptics on here you don't understand what these are referring to. You saw them on a skeptic blog site that took them out of context. So prove me wrong.

 

My advice is to stop paying attention to alarmist like Al Gore and much of the media. They cherry pick and take things out of context all of the time. They sell hype plain and simple. Instead, read the academic literature. There's almost never even a hint of alarmism or doomsday hype. It's just matter of fact research and reporting. Yes, there are some researchers on both sides that get ideological like Mann (AGW proponent) and Curry (research skeptic), but for the most part the academic community just publishes and shy's away from political wrangling.

 

If they are hiding declines in temperature then they aren't real scientists, they are just plain con men.

 

Trump saw through the BS and declined to participate in the Paris "fleecing" agreement. The taxpayers own him a big thank you.

 

What makes you think "hide the decline" is referring to temperature?

 

What makes you think it isn't?

 

The "decline" is in reference to the slowing of tree growth rates. This is known in the academic community as the divergence problem and is transparently discussed in numerous academic publications. The consensus is that the decline in tree growth rates is the result of changes in temperature and precipitation patterns due to AGW. The phenomenon is observed mainly in the northern latitudes where it just so happens that warming has been most pronounced. Let me play devils advocate here for a minute. If you're an AGW skeptic it's probably best to remain neutral on this topic. If you agree with "hide the decline" then you've at least hidden evidence favoring AGW, but then you'd have to admit to hiding evidence which is precisely what AGW skeptics lament about. But, if you disagree with "hide the decline" (like what you're doing now) then you are effectively presenting evidence in favor of AGW.

I don't mean for this to sound harsh. But, this is the problem with blindly following bloggers. You and other non-expert bloggers don't understand the jargon or the material being discussed so you take it out of context. The irony in this case is that the change in tree growth rates is widely believed to be evidence favoring AGW and you're upset that one IPCC researcher wanted to exclude it. Honestly, I take issue with that researcher wanting to "hide" it in the first place. Best case...it's a terrible choice of words. Worst case...the researcher was biased. Personally, I think it was being discussed in good faith because the graph the researcher was constructing would have been incredibly misleading to the public had it been included. Multiple independent reviews of climategate came to the same conclusion.

 

Hmm...let's try that out.

1.0 with a +/- 1.0 error
5.1 with a +/- 0.5 error
6.73 with a +/- 0.01 error
4.864 with a +/- 0.001 error
9.6758 with a +/- 0.0001 error

Let's assume all readings had a high bias with maximum error.

1.0 => 2.0
5.1 => 5.6
6.73 => 6.74
4.864 => 4.865
9.6758 => 9.6759

The true mean was 5.4750 and the error'd mean was 5.7762. That is an error of 0.3. That is less than the least precise value that had a +/- 1.0 error. And that was assuming all values had a high bias. If the error were truely random that would become more and more unlikely as more and more samples are taken. What am I missing?

 

Where do you get your information from?

He was referring to temperature not tree rings.

 

From the actual academic publications.

No. The decline is definitely in reference to tree growth rates. Temperature is related only in the sense that this exercise is trying to calibrate tree growth rates to directly sensed temperature readings. Phil Jones is not implying that temperatures declined.

I want you to answer some questions. This will force you to do some homework and research.

What is "Mike's Nature Trick"? Who is Mike?

What is the "decline" referring to specifically? I want you to name the species of tree and where they are located?

What is significant about the year 1961?

Who is Keith? What kind of research does Keith do? And what is Keith's position on the "decline" and AGW in general?

Before you research these questions I want to make it perfectly clear that I think Phil should have included the "decline" and not try to hide it. Yes, the public would have been terribly confused and the bloggers would have taken it out of context, but that happened anyway. Besides, the IPCC talks about it in other publications. Plus, it's evidence...good evidence. Yes, it is now widely believed that it supports AGW, but I don't think that's any reason to pretend like it doesn't exist. And finally, Phil's use of the word "hide" looks really bad and may indicate a deeper bias is in play. But, based on all of the emails it appears that both Phil and Keith were trying be transparent and Mike talked them out of it.

 

Link to the articles from the "actual academic publications" that prove your point please.

I already posted proof, go back and reread my posts.

 

Mann, et al. Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries
Briffa, et al. Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
Briffa, et al. Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes
Briffa, et al. Low frequency temperature variations from a northern tree ring density network.
D'Arrigo, et al. On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes

It's best if you refer to the citations at the end of each publication. Then do a cross reference on who cited these and see what other experts are saying about them.

No, you posted a link (which doesn't work by the way) that contained a cherry-pick expert from the Phil Jones email. That article did not provide the context required to interpret their conversation. I'm providing this context for you with the publication listed above. So I ask again...

Who is Mike? What is "Mike's Nature Trick"?

Who is Keith? What is Keith's position on the "decline"?

What is significant about the year 1961?

What were they even working on?

Again, I really don't mean to come across harsh, but if you're going to accuse people of fraud based on an excerpt from email you should first understand what they are talking about and who is involved in the conversation. And don't take this the wrong way, but you probably won't read the publications I listed above (and you almost certainly won't read their citations or cross reference other who cited them). Most non-expert AGW skeptics never do. I hope I'm wrong though. I hope you will read them. I honestly don't care either way what position you or others take on AGW as long as it isn't starting from position of being prejudiced against the result as opposed to rationally questioning the methods that led to the result. I want people to understand what they are criticizing instead of immediately jumping to a conclusion based on their ideology.

 

You claim you read the article, yet you don't know who is she.

No surprise, you never address my statements, you just spin and spin and spin..

"She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend."

This reality as any other reality contradicts all your statements.

As I noted the academic community has made no objection to her analyses.

You have nothing existing in reality to suspect that her method was flawed or that the research does not exist except for your zealotry of a religious fanatic.