Enormous "oops" for NOAA global warming data

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Deudalus

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Craig234


There are a variety of issues. The OP runs off like a wild man as if this proves anything about the issue of climate change, which is based on a lot of other data.

For these stations, one issue is that they'd still presumably have data that's accurate relative to other years.

Also, your statement about the likelihood of other stations having error assumes that this was a random sampling. If it was a sampling of all the 'suspect' stations, that may be wrong.

So we are being asked to make social changes that are unparalleled on data presumed to be accurate?

All results from the stations found to be out of compliance must be removed from any analysis. Its the only way to be sure. All stations should be proven to be in compliance before we go making policy based of the data collected.

All stations are suspect if the use of the data is going to affect the lives of millions. Do we have some magical number to pull out of a hat that says how many stations can be bad? Whats to stop that number from being relevant when its met or exceded? Keep moving the line and people will respect it even less.

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

Spoken like a truly un-biased MM Global Warming scientist.

Does it ever alarm you guys how quickly your agenda hops in front of the science and how you start sounding like CREATIONIST scientists or GW Bush fearmongering people to pigeon hole them into towing your line?

First I was being sarcastic.

Second if the data is wrong then the results need to be scrapped and they need to start over.

When I was in school and in science classes my chemistry teacher told us that if you make an incorrect reading, no matter how small, your entire set of results based from that data is wrong..its this basis is how we lost points on our labs.

 

[fskimospy]

Well now here's a serious question for you guys. (not to interrupt your anti global warming circle jerk or anything)

The debate over global warming really isn't about if the warming is happening or not. Even with this data aside you will find very few of even the most ardent global warming skeptics who would try to claim the earth is not getting warmer. Are you attempting to argue that warming has not in fact occured? If not, then what does this fact say to you other then that science is fallible? (which everyone already knows anyway)

I fail to see how this would impact the conclusions as to causation.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well now here's a serious question for you guys. (not to interrupt your anti global warming circle jerk or anything)

The debate over global warming really isn't about if the warming is happening or not. Even with this data aside you will find very few of even the most ardent global warming skeptics who would try to claim the earth is not getting warmer. Are you attempting to argue that warming has not in fact occured? If not, then what does this fact say to you other then that science is fallible? (which everyone already knows anyway)

I fail to see how this would impact the conclusions as to causation.

Right now Global Warming is political. That is the first and foremost problem.

Second, I believe that the pro-gw are allowing the politics to sway there opinions based on results.

Thirdly, the media is treating this subject like a bunch of scare-mongering turds, or turdly.

4th...what the heck do we really think we can do about it? We have a farming and delivery machine that will cost mass starvation and death if we shut it down.

FIVE - There is no good alternative. Yet!

Six - Fill in the blank....

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well now here's a serious question for you guys. (not to interrupt your anti global warming circle jerk or anything)

The debate over global warming really isn't about if the warming is happening or not. Even with this data aside you will find very few of even the most ardent global warming skeptics who would try to claim the earth is not getting warmer. Are you attempting to argue that warming has not in fact occured? If not, then what does this fact say to you other then that science is fallible? (which everyone already knows anyway)

I fail to see how this would impact the conclusions as to causation.

Right now Global Warming is political. That is the first and foremost problem.

Second, I believe that the pro-gw are allowing the politics to sway there opinions based on results.

Thirdly, the media is treating this subject like a bunch of scare-mongering turds, or turdly.

4th...what the heck do we really think we can do about it? We have a farming and delivery machine that will cost mass starvation and death if we shut it down.

FIVE - There is no good alternative. Yet!

Six - Fill in the blank....

That didn't answer my question. Scare mongering, blah blah aside, if this data were to be false the only meaningful conclusion that could be gained from it would be that the earth was either not warming, or that it was not warming as quickly as previously thought.

I simply stated that the fact of the earth getting warmer is really not seriously in dispute as far as I know, and so I am wondering what is the anti-gw excitement over it?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

you do realize that many will not realize it was sarcasm!

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Well now here's a serious question for you guys. (not to interrupt your anti global warming circle jerk or anything)

The debate over global warming really isn't about if the warming is happening or not. Even with this data aside you will find very few of even the most ardent global warming skeptics who would try to claim the earth is not getting warmer. Are you attempting to argue that warming has not in fact occured? If not, then what does this fact say to you other then that science is fallible? (which everyone already knows anyway)

I fail to see how this would impact the conclusions as to causation.

Right now Global Warming is political. That is the first and foremost problem.

Second, I believe that the pro-gw are allowing the politics to sway there opinions based on results.

Thirdly, the media is treating this subject like a bunch of scare-mongering turds, or turdly.

4th...what the heck do we really think we can do about it? We have a farming and delivery machine that will cost mass starvation and death if we shut it down.

FIVE - There is no good alternative. Yet!

Six - Fill in the blank....

That didn't answer my question. Scare mongering, blah blah aside, if this data were to be false the only meaningful conclusion that could be gained from it would be that the earth was either not warming, or that it was not warming as quickly as previously thought.

I simply stated that the fact of the earth getting warmer is really not seriously in dispute as far as I know, and so I am wondering what is the anti-gw excitement over it?

Facists using it as a power play to take control of the world.

One World Government.

Because if humans are really the cause of Global Warming the only way to fix it quickly is through enforcement and extermination.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Just because your data sources are inaccurate doesn't mean the conclusions are false!

you do realize that many will not realize it was sarcasm!

Sad, but true.

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Another 'drop a turd and run away' posting by Keith. This is becoming a trend.

Perhaps you should go tattle to the Moderators?

Or you would prefer me artificially bump my own threads?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
what is the anti-gw excitement over it?

Why the pro mmgw resistance to any topic which questions the science? Does it really benefit your agenda to be supported by shotty science?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MadRat
Our local weather guys have been known to set their rigs up next to corn fields. Bad idea. But it does make for a sensational news story about rising temps.

Imagine how many people would be out of a job if they didn't plant evidence of something they are supposed to be researching and paid to prove.

YA! All the way back in 1900, they went and set the temp. monitoring system up to falsify Global Warming??? 2006 only the scond warmest? Are you sure they got that one/hundredth of a degree right?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
MODS please consider consolidating all the OPs recent Global Warming threads into one tidy, GW thread. Everyone else posting here seems to be able to follow that rule with the exception of OP, hell Dave even follows this rule to a tee. I have lost count but this is at least the 4th GW troll and run thread from the OP in the past month.

And directed right at the OP, I think we told you yesterday to stop forwarding your morning emails from Freeperville to us here.

Until we get the tab, button, feature (whatever the heck it's called) back that allows us to zoom right to last page of thread, I'd ask that they DON'T consolidate them.

I no longer have the patient to look at Dave's mega threads for this very reason.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They've checked 48 out of over 1200 sites?? LOL, troll on.

Yeah, who ever heard of statistical sampling?

I find it alarming NOAA can't be bothered to verify the methodology used by their "scientist" in collecting this data. Looks like their attitude is "why bother if the data is confirming our hypothesis"? No need to let those pesky facts get in the way of our story, huh? I'll take this opportunity to again restate my sceptism of science, and encourage others to do the same.

Oh, to those who say this data isn't important anyway, I'll ask "well why the f'ck bother to collect it?" What's the point of collecting inaccurate data? I'm just sooo impressed.

Fern

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
NOAA Global Warming Data Challenged

Michael Asher (Blog) - June 18, 2007 11:15 AM

Severe problems found in temperature monitoring network.

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration reported 2006 as ?the warmest year on record" for the United States-- a statement the media trumpeted from coast to coast. A few months later, the NOAA revised their figures, saying it was actually the second warmest on record. Unsurprisingly, the correction drew little attention.

But just how accurate are these figures? The NOAA generates them from a network of 1,221 simple weather stations, usually no more a thermometer inside a tiny wooden hut, most operated by volunteers, not scientists. The network has been in operation since 1900, and provides the official baseline data for both the NOAA and global warming modelers. To ensure accurate data, the sites are supposed to conform to several guidelines, such as minimum distance from other buildings, hot pavement, etc.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts began surveying these sites recently, to see just how well they're being maintained. His site, Surfacestations.org, has detailed a surprising number being operated in a manner guaranteed to compromise their data. The problem is recent development, which has placed many sites next to direct or indirect sources of heat.

In a prime example, a site in Orland, CA (which meets good guidelines) has shown a pattern of declining temperatures for many years. A few miles away, a station in Marysville has shown a rising pattern...but the station is now next to dark asphalt, and only a few feet from the exhaust vent of a commercial AC unit. Another site is near a large barrel used for burning trash. One site even had a light bulb burning inside the tiny enclosed hut, effectively warming the thermometer by several degrees.

Surfacestations.org has only surveyed 48 of the total sites, but problems abound. Watts says this raises serious doubts about the accuracy of the network, the only source of long-term historical data for US temperature data.

The NOAA did not return a request for comments on the accuracy of their monitoring network.

I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, and I've continually heard from the media and MMGW proponents on this board that last year was the hottest, and yet it wasn't.

Not surprising for the non-science agenda-driven MMGW folks.

Take a visit over to Surfacestations.org to see some pics of the weather stations and make up your own mind if you think accurate data comes from them.

I find it appalling you do not realize that these monitoring stations were designed to be stationary and not moved due to the whims of someone's temperature-correctness. Plus you cannot spell.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: umbrella39
MODS please consider consolidating all the OPs recent Global Warming threads into one tidy, GW thread. Everyone else posting here seems to be able to follow that rule with the exception of OP, hell Dave even follows this rule to a tee. I have lost count but this is at least the 4th GW troll and run thread from the OP in the past month.

And directed right at the OP, I think we told you yesterday to stop forwarding your morning emails from Freeperville to us here.

Until we get the tab, button, feature (whatever the heck it's called) back that allows us to zoom right to last page of thread, I'd ask that they DON'T consolidate them.

I no longer have the patient to look at Dave's mega threads for this very reason.

Fern

I have mine set to show 500 replies per page so yes, even some of Dave monsters go 2-3 pages long. I can see that might be a problem.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: MadRat
Our local weather guys have been known to set their rigs up next to corn fields. Bad idea. But it does make for a sensational news story about rising temps.

Imagine how many people would be out of a job if they didn't plant evidence of something they are supposed to be researching and paid to prove.

Just off the top of my head, Big Tobacco, most Drug Companies, and G.W. Bush?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: hellokeith
NOAA Global Warming Data Challenged

Michael Asher (Blog) - June 18, 2007 11:15 AM

Severe problems found in temperature monitoring network.

Earlier this year, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration reported 2006 as ?the warmest year on record" for the United States-- a statement the media trumpeted from coast to coast. A few months later, the NOAA revised their figures, saying it was actually the second warmest on record. Unsurprisingly, the correction drew little attention.

But just how accurate are these figures? The NOAA generates them from a network of 1,221 simple weather stations, usually no more a thermometer inside a tiny wooden hut, most operated by volunteers, not scientists. The network has been in operation since 1900, and provides the official baseline data for both the NOAA and global warming modelers. To ensure accurate data, the sites are supposed to conform to several guidelines, such as minimum distance from other buildings, hot pavement, etc.

California meteorologist Anthony Watts began surveying these sites recently, to see just how well they're being maintained. His site, Surfacestations.org, has detailed a surprising number being operated in a manner guaranteed to compromise their data. The problem is recent development, which has placed many sites next to direct or indirect sources of heat.

In a prime example, a site in Orland, CA (which meets good guidelines) has shown a pattern of declining temperatures for many years. A few miles away, a station in Marysville has shown a rising pattern...but the station is now next to dark asphalt, and only a few feet from the exhaust vent of a commercial AC unit. Another site is near a large barrel used for burning trash. One site even had a light bulb burning inside the tiny enclosed hut, effectively warming the thermometer by several degrees.

Surfacestations.org has only surveyed 48 of the total sites, but problems abound. Watts says this raises serious doubts about the accuracy of the network, the only source of long-term historical data for US temperature data.

The NOAA did not return a request for comments on the accuracy of their monitoring network.

I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, and I've continually heard from the media and MMGW proponents on this board that last year was the hottest, and yet it wasn't.

Not surprising for the non-science agenda-driven MMGW folks.

Take a visit over to Surfacestations.org to see some pics of the weather stations and make up your own mind if you think accurate data comes from them.

I find it appalling you do not realize that these monitoring stations were designed to be stationary and not moved due to the whims of someone's temperature-correctness. Plus you cannot spell.

Why don't we just build a nuclear recator next to it, that way we'll really bump up the temp. Can't be moving those stations to get more accurate readings!?

 

[Jhhnn]

The reason that the old fashioned weather stations are still used is to provide continuity of results- they are, in truth, highly accurate when properly set up.

Despite the observations wrt the accuracy of the measurements from the featured stations, they all show an upward trend stretching back many years... nor has the author made any effort to ascertain when changes affecting that accuracy were made...

Other sources, like ice cores, confirm that we've been in a warming cycle since the end of the last ice age, and that current CO2 levels, a greenhouse gas, are at 130% of anything recorded in the last 450K years- spiking vertically over the last 150 years, for some strange reason... Not to mention the observable retreat of glaciers around the globe...

http://www.daviesand.com/Choic...ary_Planning/New_Data/

None of which is convenient information, not exactly what people want to believe.

The sad truth is that America's energy consumption is completely unsustainable in the long run, regardless of the whole warming issue. The smart move, other than for energy producers, is for us all to reduce consumption, become more efficient even while maintaining our lifestyles...

I would, for sure, offer that all the folks who want to deny that any issues exist should invest in low-lying real estate, put their money where their mouths are, so to speak...

Me, I'm not terribly concerned, other than for the potential refugee problem, seeing as how I live a mile above sea level...

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
They've checked 48 out of over 1200 sites?? LOL, troll on.

So, how many sites before its not trolling?


If the first sites you check have such a high number of troubling issues why should anyone expect the rest to not continue the trend?

Were the sites chosen randomly?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
.......I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, .........

Well, it made the news last night. So you can be happy now

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: hellokeith
.......I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, .........

Well, it made the news last night. So you can be happy now

Fern

Yeah, who needs scientists when you have Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? They have already reviewed the data and reached scientific conclusions about it. :roll:
Rightwingers are going to be in denial about global warming like they were in denial about Iraq WMDs. Grasping for straws until the last second.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

That didn't answer my question. Scare mongering, blah blah aside, if this data were to be false the only meaningful conclusion that could be gained from it would be that the earth was either not warming, or that it was not warming as quickly as previously thought.

I simply stated that the fact of the earth getting warmer is really not seriously in dispute as far as I know, and so I am wondering what is the anti-gw excitement over it?

Facists using it as a power play to take control of the world.

One World Government.

Because if humans are really the cause of Global Warming the only way to fix it quickly is through enforcement and extermination.

[/quote]

!?!??!!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: hellokeith
.......I find it appauling that I did not hear about the correction to the NOAA data, .........

Well, it made the news last night. So you can be happy now

Fern

Yeah, who needs scientists when you have Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? They have already reviewed the data and reached scientific conclusions about it. :roll:
Rightwingers are going to be in denial about global warming like they were in denial about Iraq WMDs. Grasping for straws until the last second.

Rush and Hanity?

AFAIK, Rush's not on TV (nor broadcasting at night), and I didn't watch Hannity & Combs last night.

What are you on about?

EDIT: Neither Rush or Hannity is a "news" show. They're op-ed

Fern

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
MODS please consider consolidating all the OPs recent Global Warming threads into one tidy, GW thread. Everyone else posting here seems to be able to follow that rule with the exception of OP, hell Dave even follows this rule to a tee. I have lost count but this is at least the 4th GW troll and run thread from the OP in the past month.

And directed right at the OP, I think we told you yesterday to stop forwarding your morning emails from Freeperville to us here.

As long as each thread is on a different topic what is the big deal?
You don't want to read one then don't read it.
How many threads have been started about Gonzales or Libby etc etc?

In addition GW is a big topic and there are tons of things going on in that field to discuss.
Let's start a thread about the fact that global temps may not have risen for the past 8 years.

 

[Comanche]

The arguement does get old, but it has to keep going because there is so much misinformation out there. So many things that are blown out of proportion to influence people who don't know any better.

Sure GW is happening and has been happening for the past 150 years. How do you account for the fact that all the warming that was going on prior to WWII happened without a lot of CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

Those of you who accept this without researching it scare me. I don't remember the guy who said it, but he advocated that the planets population should be held at 1 billion people to keep from damaging the planet. That scares me.

Finally a few links for ya.

http://www.thelocal.se/7602/20070614/
http://newsbusters.org/node/13234
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/...erican_may_cold_spell/
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/...on%20record/article.do

This all doesn't sound like a lot of warming going on.

And finally, how do you account for the midevil warming period when it was warmer than today.

 

[Comanche]

And there's a bunch more than that!

 

[Comanche]

The sad thing about GW is that the countries that will get hit hardest by it are the developing countries. If they buy into this it will be even longer before they can upgrade their standard of living.

All this over things that everyone is speculating on, guessing that in 100 years we will be in an oven.

Don't get me wrong either. I think that trying to find ways to cut emissions, having less polution is great. But don't try to convince me that we need to do this now in order to save lives in the future.