I was surprised that they estimate the land temperature record where there are no measurements. Whats the error carried through on that?
I honestly think they aren't calculating the error correctly. Legit, for 8th grade my science fair project was comparing the accuracy of different types of thermometers. Diodes, spring tension, mercury, alcohol, etc. They were only accurate to 2-3 F. No different than misunderstanding that a graduated cylinder is only accurate to +/- 0.2mL and failing to properly carry the error.
Which CPU temperature do you know is reliable? Lol.
How many different methods of temperature estimation are then lumped together into one data set? Its a mess.
I believe that federal employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have altered temperature data to try to refute an 18-year plateau in global temperatures that numerous other scientific studies have reported.
A Dec. 4 editorial, “The Latest Attack on Climate Science,” and a Dec. 8 Op-Ed essay by a climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, “The Assault on Climate Science,” unfairly described my efforts to get the American people the facts.
Atmospheric satellite data, considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. But NOAA inexplicably omitted satellite data to reach the conclusions it wanted.
Federal employees whose salaries are paid for by American taxpayers have an obligation to be open and honest. Current law allows official communications to be made public, and that is why I have subpoenaed NOAA communications about its study. The American people have a right to know the real motivations behind this study, which are clearly suspect.
The climate is always changing, and human activity likely plays a small role. But what climate alarmists say is sometimes untrue and often exaggerated. We should rely on good science, not science fiction, when we evaluate climate change.
Alarmists like Mr. Mann seek to promote a political agenda, then claim to feel intimidated when anyone asks questions. But claiming that the debate is settled is the opposite of the scientific method.
If NOAA has nothing to hide, why not provide the evidence to support the agency’s claims?
LAMAR SMITH
Washington
The writer, a Texas Republican, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology
That's a pretty serious claim Representative Smith, without any proof to back it up beyond your "belief", followed by a ridiculous "if you have nothing to hide" argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/o...climate-data.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
While the eyes of the world are on Paris, where nations are hammering out an agreement to do something about the reality of climate change, the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness once again held a hearing on Tuesday to debate whether climate change is for real. Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who is running for his party’s presidential nomination, convened the hearing titled “Data or dogma? Promoting open inquiry in the debate over the magnitude of human impact on Earth’s climate.”
Senator Cruz brought in four witnesses to testify, mostly chosen from the usual suspects that have participated in similar hearings in the past. There were two of the very small handful of climate scientists who express doubts about human responsibility for climate change—Georgia Tech professor and blogger Judith Curry and John Christy from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. William Happer, a retired Princeton physicist and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think-tank, was also invited to speak. The fourth person brought in to talk climate science was conservative radio host and columnist Mark Steyn. (The last two were keynote speakers at this year’s Heartland Institute conference for climate “skeptics.”
Senator Cruz opened the hearing with some ironic remarks. “This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we’re hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.”
Happer became a story in his own right earlier in the day, when Greenpeace released e-mails with Happer in which they had pretended to represent a foreign energy company. They asked Happer if he would produce a report extolling the virtues of CO2 but without disclosing their financial support, and Happer agreed this was something he could do. Happer explained that Peabody Coal Company had paid him $8,000 to testify at regulatory hearings in Minnesota. That fee went to the tax-exempt CO**2 Coalition, which he said pays his travel expenses but no salary. Just before Tuesday’s hearing, someone from Greenpeace filmed a heated exchange with Happer asking whether he had been paid to testify. Happer seemed to indicate that the CO2 Coalition “took some of my fee” before rising out of his chair and angrily replying, “I haven’t taken a dime, you son of a bitch.”
After Senator Cruz pushed Titley to answer a question about the satellite records, which he claimed “the global warming alarmists don’t want to talk about,” Titley let loose. “Let’s talk about the satellite measurements,” Titley said. “Let’s talk about orbital decay. Let’s talk about overlapping satellite records. Let’s talk about stratospheric temperature contamination. I think Dr. Christy and Dr. [Roy] Spencer, when they’ve put this out, they have been wrong, I think, at least four consecutive times. Each time the data record has had to be adjusted upward. There have been several sign errors. So, with all due respect, sir, I don’t know which data, exactly, your staff has, whether it’s the first or second or third or fourth correction to Dr. Christy’s data. We used to have a negative trend, and then we had no trend, and now we begrudgingly have an upward trend.”
Meanwhile his bud Ted Cruz was pulling this shit:
Senate Science Committee hearing challenges dogma of climate science
Turns out Harper had just gotten in the news recently for agreeing to say more CO2 was good for the planet in exchange for money:
The dems on the panel at least had a real climate scientist show up. He had a few good points:
:\
What's strange to me is that people in congress and on here think that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community have gotten it wrong because they didn't bother to look at a publicly available dataset.
That's a pretty serious claim Representative Smith, without any proof to back it up beyond your "belief", followed by a ridiculous "if you have nothing to hide" argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/o...climate-data.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
Edit. Why did you ".." your post? There wasn't anything wrong with it and I actually understand where you were coming from.
The proof is in the raw data VS the reproduction of their published numbers.
I don't think we need their emails until we can scientifically falsify their work.
Before a "witch hunt" I think it would be prudent to conduct a sort of "peer review".
Wait - what happened to "I'm no scientist"?
Taken a step further...
What qualifies Smith to be the Chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology?
shouldn't he be..you know....qualified?
Um.... This happens before a paper is published.
Beef is really the issue. The rest don't contribute that much.
The entirety of the surface station record, RAW vs Published, is in question.
Papers such as adding ship buckets just build on-top, assuming to be true, the underlying adjustments.
The review should be issued by Congress to select prominent figures from both sides. To workout and reproduce going from RAW to Published. To present a credible scientific challenge and determine once and for all if there's any merit to contesting the record. Warmists of all people should feel confident that science is on their side.
I don't particularly have a problem with that. I do have a problem with someone unqualified who blindly attacks a section of science and the experts who work in that area because they find the evidence inconvenient, instead of just sticking to framing their policies around the best available scientific evidence. It sets the wrong precedent - scientific evidence is not something we can just ignore because it violates our preconceived notions.
But you're right too - it's interesting that they can go so quickly from "I'm not a scientist" to "you clearly made up the data because I suddenly became an expert."
He probably Googled the Law of Large Numbers.
The entirety of the surface station record, RAW vs Published, is in question.
Papers such as adding ship buckets just build on-top, assuming to be true, the underlying adjustments.
The review should be issued by Congress to select prominent figures from both sides. To workout and reproduce going from RAW to Published. To present a credible scientific challenge and determine once and for all if there's any merit to contesting the record. Warmists of all people should feel confident that science is on their side.
Time to stop eating meat.
If you truly believe in climate change, you can't eat meat. Unless, of course, you're a hypocrite.
Uno
If you read the link the big problem with climate science is the lack of actionable data.
Politicians and such press them for actionable data and so they do come up with something, but really they are overextending beyond the limits of their data. Like trying to measure a microgram on a kitchen scale.
http://thebulletin.org/uncertainty-climate-modeling
Not to nitpick, but "that thar" is a positive slope, but the slope of the trend lines is a constant slope, not an increasing slope. If it were an increasing slope, the trend line would look more like the right side of a "happy" parabola. Increasing slope would be ocean depth - the rate at which the ocean level is rising is increasing.Yes, it is increasing, that thar is an increasing slope, thank you.
I'm already playing around with the idea that a high density of temperature readings near cities combined with the urban heat island effect could be increasing the temperature estimations in more remote regions due to systematic error. Nobody ever likes my ideas though. Particularly as population in cities has increased. Who knows maybe you guys are measuring city population density by proxy and that's why the satellite data doesn't match.
Still working on it and seeing whats out there, just an idea. To be honest I find it dreadfully boring. Its my own thought I didn't see it first online or anything.
http://therationalpessimist.com/tag/uah-satellite-temperature-record/
Its a blog sure, but seems rational.
I just do no have that much confidence in climate projections. Projections are a tricky business.
Yes, it is increasing, that thar is an increasing slope, thank you.
I'm already playing around with the idea that a high density of temperature readings near cities combined with the urban heat island effect could be increasing the temperature estimations in more remote regions due to systematic error. Nobody ever likes my ideas though. Particularly as population in cities has increased. Who knows maybe you guys are measuring city population density by proxy and that's why the satellite data doesn't match.
Still working on it and seeing whats out there, just an idea. To be honest I find it dreadfully boring. Its my own thought I didn't see it first online or anything.
http://therationalpessimist.com/tag/...rature-record/
Its a blog sure, but seems rational.
I just do no have that much confidence in climate projections. Projections are a tricky business.
Gavin Schmidt said:In a new paper in Science Express, Karl et al. describe the impacts of two significant updates to the NOAA NCEI (née NCDC) global temperature series. The two updates are: 1) the adoption of ERSST v4 for the ocean temperatures (incorporating a number of corrections for biases for different methods), and 2) the use of the larger International Surface Temperature Initiative (ISTI) weather station database, instead of GHCN. This kind of update happens all the time as datasets expand through data-recovery efforts and increasing digitization, and as biases in the raw measurements are better understood. However, this update is going to be bigger news than normal because of the claim that the ‘hiatus’ is no more. To understand why this is perhaps less dramatic than it might seem, it’s worth stepping back to see a little context…
Global temperature anomaly estimates are a product, not a measurement
The first thing to remember is that an estimate of how much warmer one year is than another in the global mean is just that, an estimate. We do not have direct measurements of the global mean anomaly, rather we have a large database of raw measurements at individual locations over a long period of time, but with an uneven spatial distribution, many missing data points, and a large number of non-climatic biases varying in time and space. To convert that into a useful time-varying global mean needs a statistical model, good understanding of the data problems and enough redundancy to characterise the uncertainties. Fortunately, there have been multiple approaches to this in recent years (GISTEMP, HadCRUT4, Cowtan & Way, Berkeley Earth, and NOAA NCEI), all of which basically give the same picture.
Composite of multiple estimates of the global temperature anomaly from Skeptical Science.
Once this is understood, it’s easy to see why there will be updates to the historical estimates over time: the raw measurement dataset used can be expanded, biases can be better understood and characterised, and the basic statistical methods for stitching it all together can be improved. Generally speaking these changes are minor and don’t effect the big picture.
observation comparisons are not greatly affected by this update
I’ve been remiss in updating these comparisons (see 2012, 2011, and 2010), but this is a good opportunity to do so. First, I show how the CMIP3 model-data comparisons are faring. This is a clean continuation to what I’ve shown before:
It is clear that temperatures are well within the expected range, regardless of the NCDC/NCEI version. Note that the model range encompasses all of the simulated internal variability as well as an increasing spread over time which is a function of model structural uncertainty. These model simulations were performed in 2004 or so, using forcings that were extrapolated from 2000.
More recently (around 2011) a wider group of centers and with more, and more up-to-date models, performed the CMIP5 simulations. The basic picture is similar over the 1950 to present range or looking more closely at the last 17 years:
The current temperatures are well within the model envelope. However, I and some colleagues recently looked closely at how well the CMIP5 simulation design has held up (Schmidt et al., 2014) and found that there have been two significant issues – the first is that volcanoes (and the cooling associated with their emissions) was underestimated post-2000 in these runs, and secondly, that solar forcing in recent years has been lower than was anticipated. While these are small effects, we estimated that had the CMIP5 simulations got this right, it would have had a noticeable effect on the ensemble. We illustrate that using the dashed lines post-1990. If this is valid (and I think it is), that places the observations well within the modified envelope, regardless of which product you favour.