FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Climate change data





yagnyavalkya
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years
Navigator
yagnyavalkya wrote:
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years


There are several projects nowadays trying to improve how the data is being collected, like these airplanes. And you probably can get some more information from NCDC, but the scientific community has being exposed as following certain agendas deviating from the goal of reliable data, as it was with the climategate, the source of that info is Wikipedia, but as an introductory read to the subject I think is OK, but I strongly recommend further research, it reveals tons about how the scientific community is being handled these days.

The data scam revealed in Climategate was the basis for Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
kelseymh
Navigator wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years


The data scam revealed in Climategate was the basis for Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually conducted a real scientific experiment? Have you recorded data using real equipment, and performed a full analysis of that data, taking into account both statistical uncertainties and systematic biases due to the performance of the equipment itself?

If you have not, then you are neither qualified nor competent to judge how scientific data analysis is performed. After you've completed your degree in a scientific field, then your opinion about data analysis might be worth something.
Navigator
kelseymh wrote:
Navigator wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years


The data scam revealed in Climategate was the basis for Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually conducted a real scientific experiment? Have you recorded data using real equipment, and performed a full analysis of that data, taking into account both statistical uncertainties and systematic biases due to the performance of the equipment itself?

If you have not, then you are neither qualified nor competent to judge how scientific data analysis is performed. After you've completed your degree in a scientific field, then your opinion about data analysis might be worth something.


Is that really important? Or are you just trying to discredit my opinion about the falsehood of the information revealed through Climategate because I am not a scientist? Do you really need to be one to know that the data was manipulated?

I have one for you, are you a football player? or a coach, or even a member of the staff for some team? I bet that that doesn't prevent you from having your own opinion about the next game or the players.
Bikerman
Mike's question was a good one. It isn't necessary to discredit your argument - and yes, you do need to understand the data to see that it WASN'T manipulated to produce a specific result. ALL data is manipulated - that is how we turn it into information.

I don't think you have a handle on the science of climate, and, as Mike hints, this means that you are drawing wildly erroneous conclusions from partial and poorly understood data.
kelseymh
Navigator wrote:
kelseymh wrote:
Navigator wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years


The data scam revealed in Climategate was the basis for Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually conducted a real scientific experiment? Have you recorded data using real equipment, and performed a full analysis of that data, taking into account both statistical uncertainties and systematic biases due to the performance of the equipment itself?

If you have not, then you are neither qualified nor competent to judge how scientific data analysis is performed. After you've completed your degree in a scientific field, then your opinion about data analysis might be worth something.


Is that really important? Or are you just trying to discredit my opinion about the falsehood of the information revealed through Climategate because I am not a scientist? Do you really need to be one to know that the data was manipulated?


I'm discrediting your opinion because you present it as fact (well, actually you mindlessly and uncritically pass on someone else's opinion as though it were your own), and because you demonstrate a clear lack of comprehension. If you have never analyzed scientific data, then you have no concept of what "manipulated" means, and are not competent to evaluate whether the analysis done for the IPCC is proper or improper.

Let me give you a very simple example. Suppose that you and a friend are trying to measure a wall for a home repair project. You give your friend then end of the tape measure to hold at one end, and you go down to the other end to make the measurement. If your friend moves around, you're not going to get the right measurement, are you? Do you still take the number you see on the tape, even though you can see that the equipment didn't perform correctly? Or do you discard that inaccurate measurement and try again?

If you throw away the incorrect result, then you're manipulating the data, aren't you? Clearly you have something to hide. In fact, you weren't really measuring the wall at all; you were casing the house in order to rob it later! You must be a thief and should be thrown in jail without a trial right now!
Navigator
kelseymh wrote:
Navigator wrote:
kelseymh wrote:
Navigator wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years


The data scam revealed in Climategate was the basis for Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually conducted a real scientific experiment? Have you recorded data using real equipment, and performed a full analysis of that data, taking into account both statistical uncertainties and systematic biases due to the performance of the equipment itself?

If you have not, then you are neither qualified nor competent to judge how scientific data analysis is performed. After you've completed your degree in a scientific field, then your opinion about data analysis might be worth something.


Is that really important? Or are you just trying to discredit my opinion about the falsehood of the information revealed through Climategate because I am not a scientist? Do you really need to be one to know that the data was manipulated?


I'm discrediting your opinion because you present it as fact (well, actually you mindlessly and uncritically pass on someone else's opinion as though it were your own), and because you demonstrate a clear lack of comprehension. If you have never analyzed scientific data, then you have no concept of what "manipulated" means, and are not competent to evaluate whether the analysis done for the IPCC is proper or improper.

Let me give you a very simple example. Suppose that you and a friend are trying to measure a wall for a home repair project. You give your friend then end of the tape measure to hold at one end, and you go down to the other end to make the measurement. If your friend moves around, you're not going to get the right measurement, are you? Do you still take the number you see on the tape, even though you can see that the equipment didn't perform correctly? Or do you discard that inaccurate measurement and try again?

If you throw away the incorrect result, then you're manipulating the data, aren't you? Clearly you have something to hide. In fact, you weren't really measuring the wall at all; you were casing the house in order to rob it later! You must be a thief and should be thrown in jail without a trial right now!


Do you need to be a scientist to understand the emails of Phil Jones?

Here is what the Telegraph has to say about the scandal

Quote:

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.


Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Article which links to another one from the Herald Sun from Australia where "the University of East Anglia CRU director admits the emails seem to be genuine"

Quote:
The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."…

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….


Well, so the emails seem genuine, which of course lead us to what the the content of these emails are, well you can download them entirely from here, or you can read them online here and make your own mind.

But to save us from this time consuming effort, here is a good video with some powerful insights.

And here is a trained physicist showing a grim perspective of the situation in science today and the effect of climategate:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/741.html

Here is Joseph D'Aleo with his view on the issue



Quote:
The familiar phrase was spoken by Marcellus in Shakespeare’s Hamlet — first performed around 1600, at the start of the Little Ice Age. “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” is the exact quote. It recognizes that fish rots from the head down, and it means that all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy. Shakespeare proved to be Nostradamus. Four centuries later — at the start of what could be a new Little Ice Age — the rotting fish is Copenhagen.

The smell in the air may be from the leftover caviar at the banquet tables, or perhaps from the exhaust of 140 private jets and 1200 limousines commissioned by the attendees when they discovered there was to be no global warming evident in Copenhagen. (In fact, the cold will deepen and give way to snow before they leave, an extension of the Gore Effect.)

But the metaphorical stench comes from the well-financed bad science and bad policy, promulgated by the UN, and the complicity of the so-called world leaders, thinking of themselves as modern-day King Canutes (the Viking king of Denmark, England, and Norway — who ironically ruled during the Medieval Warm Period this very group has tried to deny). His flatterers thought his powers “so great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back.”


If you dont want to figure who this guy is, well, heres is an abstract of his carrer

Quote:
Joseph D’Aleo is Executive Director of http://icecap.us, a former professor of meteorology and climatology, the First Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel, and a fellow of the American Meteorology Society.


If you think the emails are being misinterpreted, there are some other scientists like Chris de Freitas, that pretty much think that what is being suggested, well, its actually what we think it is being suggested

Quote:
In the light of the latest evidence, a new question is being asked: What is the basis for the claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate?

If it turns out that there is no basis, or that the evidence for it is weak, a new and perhaps more important question arises: Are carbon dioxide emissions unwelcome?

It's a well-known fact that carbon dioxide is food for plants, and that at current concentrations they are carbon dioxide-starved. Increased carbon dioxide has a pronounced fertiliser effect on plant growth. Plants convert the carbon dioxide into food and fuel. It keeps our forests and pastures healthy.

No one knows for sure what the future holds, but there are some good clues as to what's going on. It hinges on growing evidence that natural influences on climate are in fact stronger than any man-made greenhouse effect.

* Chris de Freitas is a climate scientist at the University of Auckland.


source: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10569629&pnum=1
Ankhanu
Your sources:
.: Telegraph - Strong right wing bias
.: Herald Sun (Melbourne) - Tabloid
.: Joseph d'Aleo - Creationist, climate change denier
SonLight
I have heard for many years (way before the idea of global warming was common or generally accepted by scientists) that, [approximate quote] "the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has doubled since the beginning of the industrial revolution". Unless that is false, it is very hard to imagine that plants are "starved for carbon dioxide" today. That by itself is enough to make me doubt the reliability of the person who said it.

That doesn't mean that there aren't problems with the current scientific views, however. While scientists usually do come to reasonable conclusions over time, it is common that it is very difficult to present evidence of new trends or theories which step on people's toes. New ideas need impartial peer review and for other experimenters to repeat appropriate experiments.
Navigator
Ankhanu wrote:
Your sources:
.: Telegraph - Strong right wing bias
.: Herald Sun (Melbourne) - Tabloid
.: Joseph d'Aleo - Creationist, climate change denier


Here is another interesting video on the subject, courtesy of the Corbett Report and Dr. Tim Ball, retired professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.



And here is a list of articles by the same professor on the subject, from his own website:

http://drtimball.com/?s=climategate
Bikerman
Tim Ball has been saying a lot of rather silly things recently. He is currently being sued by several people, including Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver.
The last time he was in court - he sued Dan Johnson for claiming that Ball has lied about his CV - he withdrew the action when it became clear that Johnson's claims were absolutely accurate. Specifically, the Calgary Herald, who first carried Johnson's article, robustly defended Johnson and issued the following statement to the court (just before Ball withdrew his action)
Quote:
The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. The particulars of the Plaintiff's reputation are as follows:

(a) The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming;

(b) The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

(c) The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

(d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.


I've checked the claims above and find them to be accurate.

As for the previous links - The Telegraph is not a good source for accurate information on climate science - it has a well established track record of climate scepticism. The CRU emails have been the subject of several enquiries by peope far more eminent that the science editor of the Telegraph and it has been established, 3 times now, that there was NO fiddling or other scientifically dishonest practices going on at CRU.
All three enquiries can be referenced below:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/independentreviews
Ankhanu
Good information sources are critical to forming a defensible opinion on anything, and climate change is certainly no exception. There is a lot of climate related bullshit out there, and you can find information to support any stance... but not all of the information is good information, some of it is just plain wrong, or spun from here to Hades to mean something that isn't exactly true. It's a topic with large financial implications, therefore anything that will save the money and earning potential of industries/individuals that would be impacted by recognition of something like anthropogenic climate change will be well funded and thereby prominent within media streams. That doesn't make it correct.

There is plenty of good scientific material out there that points to anthropogenic climate change, it's virtually undeniable. There are disagreements as to the level of effect or contribution, but the fact that our actions are having an impact on climate is undeniable.
Bikerman
Yes, I'd agree.
I have no axe to grind on climate change - I can afford to call it as I see it in the knowledge that the most severe effects will be long after I'm gone. There is simply no credible doubt about AGW. There are half a dozen 'climate scientists' in the world (out of thousands) who take issue. Of those there are, to the best of my knowledge, 3 who actually claim it isn't happening Tim Patterson, William Kinmonth and William Grey.
Richard Lidzen seems to change his position frequently - he now says that the IPCC predictions are likely to be wrong because the rate of rise cannot be predicted.

I've examined the evidence as best I can - including the sceptic sites, talked to climatologists and spent some time on climate forums and I am as sure as I can be that the IPCC have it about right.
yagnyavalkya
kelseymh wrote:
Navigator wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
How has the the accuracy of instruments that record temperature and other climatic parameters changed during the last several years


The data scam revealed in Climategate was the basis for Al Gore's award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever actually conducted a real scientific experiment? Have you recorded data using real equipment, and performed a full analysis of that data, taking into account both statistical uncertainties and systematic biases due to the performance of the equipment itself?

If you have not, then you are neither qualified nor competent to judge how scientific data analysis is performed. After you've completed your degree in a scientific field, then your opinion about data analysis might be worth something.

Is the question addressed to me or ""kelseymh"
yagnyavalkya
Actually the thread was about accuracy of instruments measuring climate data
here is a link on temperature measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
kelseymh
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Actually the thread was about accuracy of instruments measuring climate data
here is a link on temperature measurement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record


Quite so. I think it got derailed because I foolishly responded to a troll.

One of the difficulties with the historical record is exactly that -- it's historical, with a wide range of instruments, techniques, and reporting methods. With some of the data, it's not even known what systematic uncertainties might have been present.

The longer term records (dendrochonological analyses, ice cores, etc.) tend to be somewhat more uniform if only because a given team uses the same technique for a whole analysis.

The bottom line is that even with the uncertainties in the historical and "prehistorical" (i.e., proxy analysis rather than contemporary logs), the global mean annual temperature rise in the past century far exceeds the past range of fluctuations, and that rise is highly correlated with a similarly large rise in concentration of atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub], CH[sub]4[/sub] and related "greenhouse" gases.
Related topics
Help Predict Climate Change
British Prime Minister Blames Floods on Climate Change
Climate change escalates Darfur crisis
Wolfowitz 'tried to censor World Bank on climate change'
Climate Change Bigwigs Tell Congress about Fudged Science
Many religious leaders back climate-change action
Climate Change/Global Warming
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef - Dealing with Climate Change
expose of Climate Change Denial lies
Education on Climate Change
Bush censored climate change report. Obama releases it.
Climate change
Climate change and politics
Advice for the IPCC climate change panel, from a contributor
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> Earth

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.