The Crux of the Climate Debate

[scott]

After reading the study and looking at the data provided, two points stand out:

The ocean data had new corrections for the different methods ships have used over the years to make temperature measurements. Most significantly, they estimated the difference between modern buoy stations and older thermometer-in-a-bucket measurements.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/us-congressman-subpoenas-noaa-climate-scientists-over-study/

And then this, from the data provided by the study:

There are two columns in the annual anomaly files:
1st column = year
2nd column = anomaly of temperature (DegC)
Note: Anomalies are based on the climatology from 1971 to 2000

There are three columns in the monthly anomaly files:
1st column = year
2nd column = month
3rd column = anomaly of temperature (DegC)
Note: Anomalies are based on the climatology from 1971 to 2000

1st column = year
2nd column = anomaly of temperature (DegC)
Note: Anomalies are based on the climatology from 1971 to 2000

Global monthly average anomalies from 1880-2014 for land&ocean are available in ArcticAnalysis.mon.land_ocean.90S.90N.asc.
1st column = year.mo (Month is indicated as a fraction)
2nd column = anomaly of temperature (DegC)
Note: Anomalies are based on the climatology from 1971 to 2000

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/scpub201506/README


This new study does not use any new raw data, it only uses adjusted data aggregates from old sets that are gone. Also, the methods and justification to estimate the difference between the old temperature readings and the new temperature readings was not provided. They just declared a new way to look at the data and declared that there was a possible data bias which has been reported to mean that there is definitive proof that there was no warming hiatus. See how that works? "Possible" means "definite" and "new interpretation of old data" means "more accurate and authoritative."

Garbage in, garbage out.

[william the wierd]

This is news?

[scott]

This is news?

No, which is why I didn't post this in http://www.notpolitical.info/forums/...ews-of-the-Day

It is a valid point of discussion, except among those who are "pro-science" as long as they don't need to actually understand the science driving climate policy.

[Billy Jingo]

“NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,”

That sounds objective.

[scott]

“NOAA needs to come clean about why they altered the data to get the results they needed to advance this administration’s extreme climate change agenda,”

That sounds objective.

It should be easy to refute so why don't they?

[Billy Jingo]

It should be easy to refute so why don't they?

Refute what? That the person issuing the demands is objective? I just did that.

[scott]

Refute what? That the person issuing the demands is objective? I just did that.

Refute the claim being made, that the alterations were done to conform the results to the climate change agenda.

The estimation of the differences between the old measurement processes and the new measurement processes was not explained and without those estimates there is no increased trend in the warming. How did they determine the scope and size of the adjustments? They didn't explain that either.

You haven't read the paper so I don't understand how you can say anything else - except that you don't like Republicans and taking information without justification is somehow "pro-science" while investigating the details of a very significant study is "anti-science."

This is very similar to the climate email controversy when some scientists were stonewalling any outside look at their data and methods, they denied they were stonewalling, and then a bunch of emails were leaked showing the exact stonewalling they denied. They hid behind privacy concerns which ended up being a scheme to cover up their manipulation of the peer-review process and the publication of studies.

I acknowledge the partisan bias in these investigations and I don't think the motives are pure, but they never are in any Congressional investigation. The facts still matter and if the facts justify the result why hide them?

[Billy Jingo]

I acknowledge the partisan bias in these investigations and I don't think the motives are pure ...

Well. Then you agree with me. Although you may say it is bullshit in a nicer way that I.

All else is fluff.

[Gingersnap]

Adjusting data is a legitimate tool. The problem we have here is that the adjustments were made to fit the models instead of being used to address a well understood collection or conversion problem. Is there a collection or conversion problem that should be addressed? Probably not.

Most of this High Voodoo. Weather, climate, and variations are all gross systems. Big, brutal gross systems with a high degree of unexpected variability. This not like identifying a crystalline structure where you have a relatively static matrix that lends itself to easy identification and predictability.

NOAA has already compromised its own data multiple times that I am aware of professionally - who knows what stuff they've done in areas that I had no interest in? In science, even one egregious event designed to promote a view while suppressing contrary data should be enough to discredit the research.

That it no longer is (both in this area and many others) should make people view current scientific/governmental collaborations with some skepticism.

[scott]

Well. Then you agree with me. Although you may say it is bullshit in a nicer way that I.

All else is fluff.

The facts uncovered matter to me, apparently not to you.