Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Guam said:
|http://thumbsnap.com/J3QUjv7b
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.htm...
mike9009 said:
It seems clear enough in being yet more propaganda which contradicts the facts to keep the scam going in the form of dodgy computer predictions which are obviously based on the idea of garbage in garbage out.Guam said:
XJ Flyer said:
It seems clear enough in being yet more propaganda which contradicts the facts to keep the scam going in the form of dodgy computer predictions which are obviously based on the idea of garbage in garbage out.
Its worse than even that, the current opinion seems to be that the adjustments (and zombie station data) were occurring as part of an automated process, if that is true a computer was inventing the data on which another computer was basing its predictions.You couldn't make it up!
As for the idea of a computer being able to programme itself that seems as believable as the idea that Venus was cooked by the so called 'greenhouse gas' abilities of CO2 and not the pressure of it in those quantities.
Totally accurate databases and 100% accurate code - 2 areas of human endeavour that for which there should be 100% consensus that neither will ever exist at any useful "scale" (Thus I exclude the single record database and the single line of simple code.)
The potential for misreporting data, not monitoring for quality at all and then misrepresenting the output of any and all forms of analysis has always been high. Automating the collection processes with ever greater complexity does nothing to help the monitoring cause. New modes of easy to use (and abuse) visual presentations that may or may not take full account of the information available will likely be a recipe for poorer core decisions but faster knee jerks.
I doubt there is one organisation in the world that is not susceptible to poor process and poor "information" interpretation in principle. Throw in poor to very poor data that are not recognised as such and you have a basis for "surprises" at best and catastrophes at worst. Especially where there is no proper oversight with effective third party auditing in place.
On this basis we come to accept the 'it's good enough' position. Well, maybe but it's then a very short almost imperceptible step to 'and if it's a bit wrong' it doesn't matter too much' and so to 'no need to check it - everyone is agreed that the results are acceptable'. From which point things go down hill - especially with the Modern Times philosophy of multiple "Stakeholders" where no one has ultimate responsibility (though if things get really embarrassing there will always be some poor schmuck they will hang out to dry).
Since the data are never settled any consensus on what they mean must, at best, be based on groupthink or something very close to it.
This is the basis of policies - for all aspects of the world society - with which we are beset.
Hey ho. Maybe that is indeed as good as it can get and we get what we deserve.
The potential for misreporting data, not monitoring for quality at all and then misrepresenting the output of any and all forms of analysis has always been high. Automating the collection processes with ever greater complexity does nothing to help the monitoring cause. New modes of easy to use (and abuse) visual presentations that may or may not take full account of the information available will likely be a recipe for poorer core decisions but faster knee jerks.
I doubt there is one organisation in the world that is not susceptible to poor process and poor "information" interpretation in principle. Throw in poor to very poor data that are not recognised as such and you have a basis for "surprises" at best and catastrophes at worst. Especially where there is no proper oversight with effective third party auditing in place.
On this basis we come to accept the 'it's good enough' position. Well, maybe but it's then a very short almost imperceptible step to 'and if it's a bit wrong' it doesn't matter too much' and so to 'no need to check it - everyone is agreed that the results are acceptable'. From which point things go down hill - especially with the Modern Times philosophy of multiple "Stakeholders" where no one has ultimate responsibility (though if things get really embarrassing there will always be some poor schmuck they will hang out to dry).
Since the data are never settled any consensus on what they mean must, at best, be based on groupthink or something very close to it.
This is the basis of policies - for all aspects of the world society - with which we are beset.
Hey ho. Maybe that is indeed as good as it can get and we get what we deserve.
I wouldn't put too much trust in Steven Goddard's ( Tony Heller ) "research" to be honest. He produces so many posts a lot of it is not well thought out. He invented the North Pole season only this week, whatever that is. Confused half his own readers even. He also put out a graph that seemed to show that 0c was important for Arctic melting....
He still thinks CO2 "freezes" out in the Antartic but does accumalate.
Given all the above claims about 40% of all US weather station data now being fabricated should not be taken as Gospel until independently confirmed.
He still thinks CO2 "freezes" out in the Antartic but does accumalate.
Given all the above claims about 40% of all US weather station data now being fabricated should not be taken as Gospel until independently confirmed.
Guam said:
Gandahar said:
I wouldn't put too much trust in Steven Goddard's ( Tony Heller ) "research" to be honest. He produces so many posts a lot of it is not well thought out. He invented the North Pole season only this week, whatever that is. Confused half his own readers even. He also put out a graph that seemed to show that 0c was important for Arctic melting....
He still thinks CO2 "freezes" out in the Antartic but does accumalate.
Given all the above claims about 40% of all US weather station data now being fabricated should not be taken as Gospel until independently confirmed.
That line has already been tried across the Blogosphere, unfortunately for them, on this, several others have verified the findings, you can find those comments on Watts (and elsewhere), whilst Goddard has unquestionably been "out there" before, this time he is right on the money. Others have checked and rechecked his findings and they are confirming them.He still thinks CO2 "freezes" out in the Antartic but does accumalate.
Given all the above claims about 40% of all US weather station data now being fabricated should not be taken as Gospel until independently confirmed.
one such set of remarks.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientif...
From the above article
"Now that the wall is down, NCDC won’t be able to ignore this, even John Nielsen-Gammon, who was critical of Goddard along with me in the Polifact story now says there is a real problem. So does Zeke, and we have all sent or forwarded email to NCDC advising them of it.
I’ve also been on the phone Friday with the assistant director of NCDC and chief scientist (Tom Peterson), and also with the person in charge of USHCN (Matt Menne). Both were quality, professional conversations, and both thanked me for bringing it to their attention. There is lots of email flying back and forth too.
They are taking this seriously, they have to, as final data as currently presented for USHCN is clearly wrong. John Neilsen-Gammon sent me a cursory analysis for Texas USHCN stations, noting he found a number of stations that had “estimated” data in place of actual good data that NCDC has in hand, and appears in the RAW USHCN data file on their FTP site"
Edited by Guam on Tuesday 1st July 07:06
From reading Watts piece
1. 10% of all stations have been estimated for last Century
2. Up to 25% of stations no longer working get estimated
3. In last year up to 40% of weather measurements got estimated ( not fabricated as said by Steve G in his usual style).
I'm not too bothered about the estimations as such, if they miss a day then I don't see a problem with fillign in. Though the decision to keep estimating for dead stations seems not a very good idea at all ( though this does have the benefit of no bias being brought in when they put tarmac around the non functioning station, or air conditioning outlet over it
) and so they should stop this. No point in estimating constantly, waste of time and shows nothing. How can a contant estimate ever show a trend?Ironically it seems they do have good data for some of these live stations but are still estimating it. Seems to be like a privet hedge that has been unattended for too long.
It's good that Steve's piece seems to have been taken up for further investigation, ironically if Anthony Watts and other people had not, wrongly, got so upset with it I think people would not have noticed it as much as the people who visit Goddards site tend to be, rather eccentric, a group within a group. I have visited since it started, cough.
A bigger issue to me is not this infilling, it is the alterations to the changed values over time for some of the many reasons given forward ( change in time being measured etc etc ). I don't believe with so many changes it can be a reliable way to show the exact trend. When satellites are changed, such as for polar observations they have to be careful for continuity to make sure historical recordings are comparitive. Here with this US series of measurements it seems anything just.
The mainstream media picked up on Goddards claim of changes to the historical record and this was countered by Watts and others as not being right, however I think this new problem with estimates will mean that changing of the historical record might get ignored. I actually think that has more legs, even if the changes are not as much as Steve claims.
"The mainstream media picked up on Goddards claim of changes to the historical record and this was countered by Watts and others as not being right"
And now Watts has changed his position. Wider than that, it's seen to be right
The gridded surface temperature database has been a work of fiction for some time, and they still can't get the story to add up to a visivble human signal in global climate data. Add incompetence to the list...hang on, it was there already.
And now Watts has changed his position. Wider than that, it's seen to be right
The gridded surface temperature database has been a work of fiction for some time, and they still can't get the story to add up to a visivble human signal in global climate data. Add incompetence to the list...hang on, it was there already.
turbobloke said:
"The mainstream media picked up on Goddards claim of changes to the historical record and this was countered by Watts and others as not being right"
And now Watts has changed his position. Wider than that, it's seen to be right
The gridded surface temperature database has been a work of fiction for some time, and they still can't get the story to add up to a visivble human signal in global climate data. Add incompetence to the list...hang on, it was there already.
He's changed his position on the estimates / fabrication / zombies issue but not the changing historical values over time issue, unless I have missed it. And now Watts has changed his position. Wider than that, it's seen to be right
The gridded surface temperature database has been a work of fiction for some time, and they still can't get the story to add up to a visivble human signal in global climate data. Add incompetence to the list...hang on, it was there already.
Gandahar said:
He's changed his position on the estimates / fabrication / zombies issue but not the changing historical values over time issue, unless I have missed it.
In terms of surface temperatures, what is historical?Just look at the datasets and you can see without asking Watts.
"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend."
EPA, the pet of Obama and Holdren, dropped its bone on this one. With the latest developments these may not survive, but for now:
turbobloke said:
Gandahar said:
He's changed his position on the estimates / fabrication / zombies issue but not the changing historical values over time issue, unless I have missed it.
In terms of surface temperatures, what is historical?Just look at the datasets and you can see without asking Watts.
"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend."
EPA, the pet of Obama and Holdren, dropped its bone on this one. With the latest developments these may not survive, but for now:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-ca...
Zeke said " As mentioned earlier, Goddard’s fundamental error is that he just averages absolute temperatures with no use of anomalies or spatial weighting. This is fine when station records are complete and well distributed; when the station network composition is changing over time or the stations are not well-distributed, however, it gives you a biased result as discussed at length earlier."
Watts never had an issue here, said he agreed with him. So their beef is that this graph does not put a weighting in (other weightings were things like when the daily temp was measured changed). Ironically the effect from changes of stations over time is not as much as an issue if they are still estimating ones that no longer report !! Which is quite amusing. That would tend to reduce the changes.
There are two issues here, the yearly results changing AND also the fact those yearly results seem to be produced with too much estimated data and not as much proper data that is available. I am concerned the latter issue is going to going to swamp the first issue.
The ideal would be
1. They re-evaluate the changes they have made to the historical record to make sure the changes are as valid as possible.
2. They do an overhaul of the US weather ground station network so that sites that are reporting do so ( not estimated ) and no longer functioning stations don't report.
Both issues are important, the latter seems more big organisation incompetence where as the former could introduce human bias to change viewpoint if wrong.
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 1st July 09:31
Guam said:
So does the Met office have a Zombie station program? 
That did cross my mind when I read this, how does ours compare ?Edited by Guam on Tuesday 1st July 09:24
Edited by Guam on Tuesday 1st July 09:25
Another question that struck me is lets hope these entities do not get paid yearly assuming they have a network of X stations when they actually have X-25%.... could be an ass kicking session in the US if that is the case. Might have to pay it back. Hence perhaps why it was under the carpet?
Guam said:
XJ Flyer said:
An automated 'process' that just happens to support the global warmists theories seems like too much of a coincidence.
As for the idea of a computer being able to programme itself that seems as believable as the idea that Venus was cooked by the so called 'greenhouse gas' abilities of CO2 and not the pressure of it in those quantities.
No one was suggesting the computer programmed itself, the adjustments appear to be an automated process is what was suggested, inferring that once filtration and parameters had been setup all data was run through them once on the system without further intervention. In other words the output was not actual raw data when compiled but was adjusted data produced on each run at compilation time.As for the idea of a computer being able to programme itself that seems as believable as the idea that Venus was cooked by the so called 'greenhouse gas' abilities of CO2 and not the pressure of it in those quantities.
That's in addition to the fact that the warmist cause hasn't even provided proof that CO2 is a so called 'greenhouse gas' being that the idea is mostly based on Sagan's 'observations' on Venus.When in fact,as Goddard has stated,it's the atmospheric pressure which would explain the cooking of the planet more than the fact that it's atmosphere just happens to be made up of mostly C02.
IE the whole issue of dodgy computer predictions put up by the warmist agenda is,not surprisingly,all about them using more lies to cover up and perpetuate on Earth,the original big lie in that Venus has supposedly been cooked by the greenhouse effect of the CO2 that makes up it's atmosphere.When that original lie is seen for what it is the rest of the scam just falls apart automatically and if we want to take the warmist cause apart it's where the whole thing started which is the best place to do it.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Tuesday 1st July 11:54
Guam said:
Lifes a funny thing, there was I thinking I was largely done on this thread as the analysis seemed to have settled down as a discussion topic, now this kicks off I guess I will be in here a lot more for the next few weeks
That's Politics for you! I guess I will be in here a lot more for the next few weeks Just when things look reasonably settled some "event" erupts from nowhere and disturbs everything around it.
In a historical perspective ...
The fairly recent development of spreading use of the internal combustion engine 100 years ago led to a journey where a driver of some VIP took a wrong turn. Shortly after that his passenger was killed by some chancer terrorist whose plan had failed but whose planning put him in the area and the result of this small driving indiscretion became known as the First World War. One could argue that the results of that escapade produced the Second World War a short while later. Also the EU.
Interestingly the period from start to finish - approximately 31 years - is quite similar to the period of satellite analysis for Climate Science and the campaign period for AGW. That period was boosted, as I recall, by the chance opportunity of a presentation to US "Lawmakers" falling on a very hot day in Washington DC which hotness could be enhanced by ensure the air-conditioning had failed and windows could not be opened.
It's often the little things that have the greater impact on the wider and longer term results. Especially in Politics.
Gandahar said:
Watts and Zeke still seem to be critical of this animation by Steve, looking at
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-ca...
Zeke said " As mentioned earlier, Goddard’s fundamental error is that he just averages absolute temperatures with no use of anomalies or spatial weighting. This is fine when station records are complete and well distributed; when the station network composition is changing over time or the stations are not well-distributed, however, it gives you a biased result as discussed at length earlier."
Watts never had an issue here, said he agreed with him. So their beef is that this graph does not put a weighting in (other weightings were things like when the daily temp was measured changed). Ironically the effect from changes of stations over time is not as much as an issue if they are still estimating ones that no longer report !! Which is quite amusing. That would tend to reduce the changes.
There are two issues here, the yearly results changing AND also the fact those yearly results seem to be produced with too much estimated data and not as much proper data that is available. I am concerned the latter issue is going to going to swamp the first issue.
The ideal would be
1. They re-evaluate the changes they have made to the historical record to make sure the changes are as valid as possible.
2. They do an overhaul of the US weather ground station network so that sites that are reporting do so ( not estimated ) and no longer functioning stations don't report.
Both issues are important, the latter seems more big organisation incompetence where as the former could introduce human bias to change viewpoint if wrong.
you are missing the entire point. the gridding is a minor issue,it is the infilling that is the big issue. what appears to be happening is there is a major drop out in rural stations. the rural station drop out is infilled by the homogenized data from urban stations . http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-ca...
Zeke said " As mentioned earlier, Goddard’s fundamental error is that he just averages absolute temperatures with no use of anomalies or spatial weighting. This is fine when station records are complete and well distributed; when the station network composition is changing over time or the stations are not well-distributed, however, it gives you a biased result as discussed at length earlier."
Watts never had an issue here, said he agreed with him. So their beef is that this graph does not put a weighting in (other weightings were things like when the daily temp was measured changed). Ironically the effect from changes of stations over time is not as much as an issue if they are still estimating ones that no longer report !! Which is quite amusing. That would tend to reduce the changes.
There are two issues here, the yearly results changing AND also the fact those yearly results seem to be produced with too much estimated data and not as much proper data that is available. I am concerned the latter issue is going to going to swamp the first issue.
The ideal would be
1. They re-evaluate the changes they have made to the historical record to make sure the changes are as valid as possible.
2. They do an overhaul of the US weather ground station network so that sites that are reporting do so ( not estimated ) and no longer functioning stations don't report.
Both issues are important, the latter seems more big organisation incompetence where as the former could introduce human bias to change viewpoint if wrong.
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 1st July 09:31
this issue raises further issues with the satellite data, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature...
which appears to have a similar trend to the fabricated land temperatures.
when you read this from dr roy spencer " Because of various radiometer-related and antenna-related factors, the absolute accuracy of the calibrated Earth-viewing temperatures are probably not much better than 1 deg. C. " from here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-gl... it does not inspire confidence,though he goes on to clarify it is not an issue as long as the innaccuracy is maintained accurately ? it is fine for displaying trends. looking at this description of how the satellite temperature record is created it would appear there is at least as much,if not more,possibility of fudging going on.
this from johnkl " If by longer trend line you mean the entire UAH dataset (1979-2014) this appears to be true. However, the UAH dataset presented doesn’t comprise RAW data, but ADJUSTED DATA. Wikipedia at one point listed 10 adjustments made to the UAH temp dataset, including a 1 deg centigrade temp increase in 1998 due to orbital decay believe it or not. Since the orbital decay can have only worsened since that time it would be interesting to know how much further the data has been adjusted as a result of orbital decay since then, not to mention other WARMING adjustments not publicized." from dr roys blog here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/las-vegas-temp...
would tend to support the assertion of fudging going on in the uah "data".
apologies once again for lack of formatting skills.(possibly comprehension as well,but we will see)
Edited by wc98 on Tuesday 1st July 12:15
Guam said:
LongQ said:
That's Politics for you!
Just when things look reasonably settled some "event" erupts from nowhere and disturbs everything around it.
In a historical perspective ...
The fairly recent development of spreading use of the internal combustion engine 100 years ago led to a journey where a driver of some VIP took a wrong turn. Shortly after that his passenger was killed by some chancer terrorist whose plan had failed but whose planning put him in the area and the result of this small driving indiscretion became known as the First World War. One could argue that the results of that escapade produced the Second World War a short while later. Also the EU.
Interestingly the period from start to finish - approximately 31 years - is quite similar to the period of satellite analysis for Climate Science and the campaign period for AGW. That period was boosted, as I recall, by the chance opportunity of a presentation to US "Lawmakers" falling on a very hot day in Washington DC which hotness could be enhanced by ensure the air-conditioning had failed and windows could not be opened.
It's often the little things that have the greater impact on the wider and longer term results. Especially in Politics.
Indeed, I was trying to explain what this potentially means to someone last night, the best analogy I could come up with (which is apposite as this is PH) was " Think of a car and a Journey" now try and assess whether you will make your destination without knowing how much fuel is in the tank AND not knowing the vehicles MPG Just when things look reasonably settled some "event" erupts from nowhere and disturbs everything around it.
In a historical perspective ...
The fairly recent development of spreading use of the internal combustion engine 100 years ago led to a journey where a driver of some VIP took a wrong turn. Shortly after that his passenger was killed by some chancer terrorist whose plan had failed but whose planning put him in the area and the result of this small driving indiscretion became known as the First World War. One could argue that the results of that escapade produced the Second World War a short while later. Also the EU.
Interestingly the period from start to finish - approximately 31 years - is quite similar to the period of satellite analysis for Climate Science and the campaign period for AGW. That period was boosted, as I recall, by the chance opportunity of a presentation to US "Lawmakers" falling on a very hot day in Washington DC which hotness could be enhanced by ensure the air-conditioning had failed and windows could not be opened.
It's often the little things that have the greater impact on the wider and longer term results. Especially in Politics.
But if you have knowledge of neither one could argue that they are not, considered individually, important to your decision and therefore the likelihood of a successful journey. That would leave you free to consider how quickly you should drive and where to stop for breaks, etc. You can ignore, for planning purposes, whether you are likely to get anywhere at all since that is not within your known parameters list. At this point one might re-invoke old "Plans are Useless but planning is essential" meme. However by itself that does not guarantee success but might offer a better outcome if events that arise have been covered in the planning even if the plan has no action that exerts influence on them.
This the whole matter is political.
If it were Scientific it would be theoretical at this stage (as it probably is at best currently) and potentially interesting but not the source of serious input for immediate social policy decisions.
Had the theories moved on to be practical, provable and repeatable studies with a useable technological output that could be put to some purpose ... that would be science, a science offering a useful input to politics and the "Lawmakers" should they choose to take note of it.
Guam said:
Surprised you didnt use the Old Lennon one (IIRC) Life is what happens to you between your plans!
On a different note, once folk start turning over rocks all manner of things come scurrying out.
Australia come on down (well worth a read) http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
A snip from the paper
"These statistics suggest a very different story to the Bureau’s
official mean trend of about 1 degree C
per century for the period 1910 to 2013, Figure 10.
Their value is greater than our calculation
by more than a factor of 10
and in the direction of warming"
http://jennifermarohasy.com/
Interesting obs from Aus.On a different note, once folk start turning over rocks all manner of things come scurrying out.
Australia come on down (well worth a read) http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
A snip from the paper
"These statistics suggest a very different story to the Bureau’s
official mean trend of about 1 degree C
per century for the period 1910 to 2013, Figure 10.
Their value is greater than our calculation
by more than a factor of 10
and in the direction of warming"
http://jennifermarohasy.com/
Edited by Guam on Tuesday 1st July 13:28
Was not aware of the Lennon quote but in any case the Eisenhower quote (Plans are useless but planning is essential) seems apposite since I understand it is best known in connection with the build up to D-Day.
CC OUGHT to be a philosophical position and associated debate and that might have best associated with Lennon but the discussion seems to have become a war so perhaps Gen. Eisenhower's version fits more clearly.
Guam said:
So does the Met office have a Zombie station program?
not sure about the stations ,but this would appear to suggest there is a serious issue with the data once part two is released. http://daedalearth.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/part-1...Edited by Guam on Tuesday 1st July 09:24
Edited by Guam on Tuesday 1st July 09:25
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff