Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[wufan]

NOAA faked global warming data?

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...-is-fake-data/

I don't know if this is true, but this has been an issue in the sat in this field of study. Data is obtained, smoothed, extrapolated, and published. The extrapolated data is then extrapolated into a second study as original data, making the following study worthless. The second extrapolated study is again smoothed and altered and the next thing you know you have a hockey stick.

Politicians/activists with an agenda assume human cause, and Al Gore wins a Nobel prize for his recorded seminar on BS. The preceding does not necessarily reflect the accuracy of the above article.

[Kung Wu]

Ut oh .... somebody has been lying to us . . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

[wufan]

Ut oh .... somebody has been lying to us . . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

The problem continues...minimize the data that doesn't support your initial claims, and manipulate the data that does exist to make more of an impact. Once you've "fixed" the things that cause issues, extrapolate with computer models based on what you think is causing the warming.

For goodness sakes, CO2 emissions trail temperature changes over time, yet this is the driving cause to increased surface temperature?

[CBB_Fan]

Ut oh .... somebody has been lying to us . . .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html

Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper. For reference, a sample front-page.

As far as the realclimatescience goes, you should avoid getting scientific analysis at sites that run stories like "Nazi Brownshirts Gather at Berkeley." The man behind the site is Steven Goddard, pseudonym Tony Heller, has a BS in Geology from Arizona State and a history of misinterpreting data. He posted anonymously on the Watts Up With That blog before moving to stevengoddard.wordpress.com and then realclimatescience.com. His first claim was that NSIDC's data showing arctic ice loss was inaccurate and was retracted 10 days later.

His next claim, and claim to fame, is a June 2014 statement that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000. This claim was evaluated by Zeke Hausfather and Berkeley Earth, which have expressed doubts with the reports of climate change coming out of Washington. They found two massive errors in Goddard's analysis. First, he failed to account for differences in the composition of stations over time. Here is an example he used to show why simple averaging (as Goddard did) creates false trends when stations drop out or are added. In the example, he created created a "toy planet" with an artificial -.2/C temperature drop recorded by 10 thermometers. When a lower temperature thermometer is dropped the average goes up.

The second mistake is a lack of "gridding." "While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed." Other climate skeptics, such as Anthony Watts and Judith Curry have said that "what Goddard did to the data was bogus" and that "Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication." Anthony Watts went so far as to fire Goddard from his spot as a guest blogger.

Later on he claimed that Venus was hot not because of trapped thermal radiation but because of atmospheric pressure and mistook sea ice for a glacier.

In short, he and his site are among the least credible of climate change deniers even among deniers.

[Kung Wu]

Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper. For reference, a sample front-page.

As far as the realclimatescience goes, you should avoid getting scientific analysis at sites that run stories like "Nazi Brownshirts Gather at Berkeley." The man behind the site is Steven Goddard, pseudonym Tony Heller, has a BS in Geology from Arizona State and a history of misinterpreting data. He posted anonymously on the Watts Up With That blog before moving to stevengoddard.wordpress.com and then realclimatescience.com. His first claim was that NSIDC's data showing arctic ice loss was inaccurate and was retracted 10 days later.

His next claim, and claim to fame, is a June 2014 statement that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000. This claim was evaluated by Zeke Hausfather and Berkeley Earth, which have expressed doubts with the reports of climate change coming out of Washington. They found two massive errors in Goddard's analysis. First, he failed to account for differences in the composition of stations over time. Here is an example he used to show why simple averaging (as Goddard did) creates false trends when stations drop out or are added. In the example, he created created a "toy planet" with an artificial -.2/C temperature drop recorded by 10 thermometers. When a lower temperature thermometer is dropped the average goes up.

The second mistake is a lack of "gridding." "While the USHCN network is fairly well distributed across the U.S., its not perfectly so, and some areas of the country have considerably more stations than others. Not gridding also can exacerbate the effect of station drop-out when the stations that drop out are not randomly distributed." Other climate skeptics, such as Anthony Watts and Judith Curry have said that "what Goddard did to the data was bogus" and that "Goddard” is wrong is his assertions of fabrication." Anthony Watts went so far as to fire Goddard from his spot as a guest blogger.

Later on he claimed that Venus was hot not because of trapped thermal radiation but because of atmospheric pressure and mistook sea ice for a glacier.

In short, he and his site are among the least credible of climate change deniers even among deniers.

Well this is one masterpiece of an ad hominem fallacy. Why don't you dispute the content of the article?

Dr. John Bates of NOAA has specifically made a very detailed claim -- providing evidence -- that one or more of his superiors specifically manipulated global warming data, did not disclose the raw data sets that he was working with, rushed to publish the "findings" without proper peer review, and timed the release of the data to influence a major political conference.

What part of those claims are completely untrue?

[jdshock]

Well this is one masterpiece of an ad hominem fallacy. Why don't you dispute the content of the article?

Dr. John Bates of NOAA has specifically made a very detailed claim -- providing evidence -- that one or more of his superiors specifically manipulated global warming data, did not disclose the raw data sets that he was working with, rushed to publish the "findings" without proper peer review, and timed the release of the data to influence a major political conference.

What part of those claims are completely untrue?

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

What would it take for you to be swayed? What would the evidence have to look like for you to believe that climate change is an imminent threat and we need to take action quickly?

[Kung Wu]

Bottom line is, the results of the NOAA study should be reproducable. Why would the NOAA rush to print a flawed study without proper peer review, when, if everything was on the up-and-up they could have just done it the right way? We know that the study was flawed, but that dosn't meant the end result won't end up similar. So if it turns out the result is sort of correct, why did they go to such lengths to push it out the door instead of just doing it the correct way?

It's crap like this that make people skeptical (and properly so).

[Kung Wu]

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factchec...mperature-rise

What would it take for you to be swayed? What would the evidence have to look like for you to believe that climate change is an imminent threat and we need to take action quickly?

Well one thing would help is if government funded organizations (in this case an actual government organization) would stop stonewalling requests for complete data and start providing complete and total transparency. Why wouldn't the NOAA turn over all the information to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology? What can possibly be the reason a science organization funded by the government would not comply with subpoenas to turn over the information requested to Congress, all the while whistleblowers are coming forth about the research?

If bad data is being fed into the peer reviewed articles that other scientists use to draw conclusions, how can you possibly trust the conclusions?

[jdshock]

Well one thing would help is if government funded organizations (in this case an actual government organization) would stop stonewalling requests for complete data and start providing complete and total transparency. Why wouldn't the NOAA turn over all the information to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology? What can possibly be the reason a science organization funded by the government would not comply with subpoenas to turn over the information requested to Congress, all the while whistleblowers are coming forth about the research?

If bad data is being fed into the peer reviewed articles that other scientists use to draw conclusions, how can you possibly trust the conclusions?

It wasn't a request for complete data. All of the data was available online. Environmental-Witch Hunter Lamar Smith (who has received a large chunk of change from the oil and gas industry) requested all internal communication surrounding the study.

What could possibly be the reason? Because when you have thousands of emails, and you know what you're looking for, you can cherry pick anything to make it look like someone said something they didn't. It happened with the Clinton emails here on Shockernet. People would say "I found this email that said she hates the American people!" and that was the headline. Obviously our government officials aren't allowed to break the law, but you still need a warrant to search their houses. Just filing subpoena after subpoena like Smith has done is an attempt to find controversy where there is none.

An independent study confirmed the findings of the NOAA.

I still want to know what it is you're waiting for, though. You aren't swayed by the data. You aren't swayed by the fact that the vast majority of scientists are on board with the idea of human caused climate change. What is it you're waiting for? What does the science need to say for you to believe climate change is a concern? You gave me an example of something that you wanted to happen, but it's obvious that your stance on that issue is just based on your previously existing belief because an independent study confirmed the findings and it's clear that the data had actually been released, it was emails that were being subpoenaed. So, tell me, what is it that you need to be convinced?

[SB Shock]

Global warming is a good thing. Global cooling is a bad thing. There is never Global Status Quo.

[ShockerPrez]

Does anyone really believe that we are headed for a global warming doomsday?

Seriously...

[jdshock]

Does anyone really believe that we are headed for a global warming doomsday?

Seriously...

I don't believe the majority think we're headed towards a "doomsday" but do believe it to be a real threat that can cause serious problems:

• Climate change affects the social and environmental determinants of health – clean air, safe drinking water, sufficient food and secure shelter.
• Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

[ShockerPrez]

Seems to me that most of those detriments would be best solved through more freedom and capitalism. Those afflictions are generally a symptom of 3rd world countries almost completely devoid of capitalism and freedom.

And how, exactly does climate change affect the determinants of health more than living in a hellhole 3rd world country run by warlords and socialists?

Some of these talking points are just plain bullshit.

[CBB_Fan]

Bates claims that Karl made a series of choices to exaggerate the apparent warming trend,

Well this is one masterpiece of an ad hominem fallacy. Why don't you dispute the content of the article?

Dr. John Bates of NOAA has specifically made a very detailed claim -- providing evidence -- that one or more of his superiors specifically manipulated global warming data, did not disclose the raw data sets that he was working with, rushed to publish the "findings" without proper peer review, and timed the release of the data to influence a major political conference.

What part of those claims are completely untrue?

Why don't you find a credible source? If you want to be taken seriously, it is YOUR responsibility to present your argument or information in the most credible way possible. DailyMail has a long and extensive history of publishing completely false or made-up stories, and by using them as your main source you are showing you are okay with the potential that your whistleblower might not even be a real person.

As far as Bate's assertions over Tom Karl:

* Bates was not personally involved in the research at any stage
* Bates claims that Karl made a series of choices to exaggerate the apparent warming trend, which would be difficult for Karl to do since he didn’t contribute to the underlying databases, simply ran those updated databases through the same algorithm NOAA was already using.
* Bates made bad comparisons between his work on weather satellites and land stations. Problems with stations on the ground can be easily fixed, while those on a satellite cannot. Thus satellite stations have a much slower, more thorough troubleshooting process that was being unncessarily applied to land stations
* ALL raw data is available to the public. Bate's issue was with the internal processes for archiving the data and stress-testing the updated databases.
* Bates claims that the changes were rushed for political reasons. However, the changes requested in the arctic coincided with a real data phenomenon: NOAA's data was an outlier and they believed this was because they did not have enough recording stations in the arctic.
* Bates has personal issues with Karl, as Karl demoted Bates in 2012. Much of this issue is office politics and resentment.
* Independent groups have confirmed that the updated datasets more closely match NASA, the Berkeley team, and the UK Met Office. It doesn't create a new picture of warming above and beyond what previous studies have found, it found a reason for the discrepancy between NOAA and the other groups and fixed it.
* A graph showed in the DailyMail show's NOAA as 0.1°C warmer than data by the UK Met Office, and this is simply a mistake, as the numbers are calculated to different baselines (the 1901-2000 average for NOAA and the 1961-1990 average for the Met Office).

So in short:

* The article itself makes numerous scientific mistakes
* Bates had a personal grudge against the scientist he was attacking, who demoted him
* Bates claims Karl had his thumb on the scale, but never shows HOW this could be possible as Karl simply ran existing data through existing algorithms
* Bates claims Karl rushed the addition of additional arctic stations for purely political purpose, yet independent groups have shown that these changes fixed a known issue in the data

[jdshock]

Seems to me that most of those detriments would be best solved through more freedom and capitalism. Those afflictions are generally a symptom of 3rd world countries almost completely devoid of capitalism and freedom.

If you're willing to believe climate change is a threat that needs to be addressed, it is the textbook example of something that cannot be resolved via capitalism and the free market. Climate change is, by definition, the type of externality that a profit-seeking business would not take into consideration.