The GIG is up on the IPCC and the tweaked NASA data

a reply to: network dude

You have a temperature probe. It's not an expensive thing. Then you question the accuracy of said probe. So you install a secondary probe of a different type to verify. If you find a discrepancy, you REPLACE the malfunctioning probe and disregard the data.

Who said the instruments were malfunctioning? A bias is not the same thing as a malfunction. But apart from that, how does new instrumentation aid in trend analysis over the past 75 years?

a reply to: nullafides

Disagree.....great....provide a reason why and back it up........ but discredit? Personally attack based off of ones intellect and diligence? Immediately go for the jugular?

Pardon me? Whose intellect have I attacked.?

Diligence? Ok, if the OP had read the IPCC reports which clearly discuss the adjustments and why they are made, why does he post a rant about how they IPCC is lying about the data. Not a very good lying technique when you tell people you are doing it. But perhaps the OP had read the IPCC reports. In that case, one must wonder who exactly may be lying.

a reply to: Phage



So,at least part of the data is a wild guess,right?

a reply to: Sunwolf

No.
Data which is shown to be completely unreliable is not used.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

You have a temperature probe. It's not an expensive thing. Then you question the accuracy of said probe. So you install a secondary probe of a different type to verify. If you find a discrepancy, you REPLACE the malfunctioning probe and disregard the data.

Who said the instruments were malfunctioning? A bias is not the same thing as a malfunction. But apart from that, how does new instrumentation aid in trend analysis over the past 75 years?

Either the data is true, and accurate, or there is some reason to not trust the data. (hence the adjustments mentioned in the data homogenization) I do realize that without the invention of a time machine, nothing can be done about the past data, but as I mentioned, this is kind of a high profile topic. FROM THIS POINT FORWARD ensuring that all data acquisition sites are accurate and true should be paramount. There should be no reason to adjust data.

And my point was and is, this isn't new science, instrumentation has been around a long time and the methods of ensuring accuracy have as well. I guess it just wasn't all that important before now right?

Unless you feel that WAGs are an acceptable way to prove scientific points.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sunwolf

No.
Data which is shown to be completely unreliable is not used.

Wait, how would data be unreliable if not for a malfunction?

a reply to: network dude

Is the instrument in the city, is it in a valley, a mountain top, does it sit in the shade, in the sun, in a box, a ventilated box, out in the open... What time of day is it checked, is it checked every day at the same time? There's loads of valid reasons perfectly functioning instruments would need to be checked for a warm or cool bias and then adjust the data accordingly.

a reply to: Kali74

If the purpose is to record temperature, then super. If the purpose is to record only the temperature we want to see, then why bother with the silliness of having a probe there, just write down what you want.

I honestly do get what you keep saying and why. I get that all the science points to man's contribution to warming through C02 output. I hold out hope that the science will somehow change it's views based on new evidence at some point that will point to the whole warming thing as a non issue in the future since i don't see "US" jumping up to make any drastic changes in how we move ourselves around.

But the very few things in life that I know something about interest me. I have a background of many years working with instrumentation and calibration. The process is quite simple and since this is such a big deal, I find it laughable that there isn't a strict adherence to the protocols of measurement in this subject.

It's almost as if very little thought was put into how we measure ambient temperature.

originally posted by: network dude

It's almost as if very little thought was put into how we measure ambient temperature.

Try telling that to a glacier they have a very neat way of indicating mean temperature changes, guess what:

Glaciers say we are getting warmer. No they do honest I had a chat with one the other day it made far more sense than some of the drivel spouted by deniers recently.

a reply to: Kali74

That would be true if the raw data weren't easily available.

Yes but the raw data is considered to be unreliable,right! or should I say inconvenient, a word often used in this argument.

Is the instrument in the city, is it in a valley, a mountain top, does it sit in the shade, in the sun, in a box, a ventilated box, out in the open... What time of day is it checked, is it checked every day at the same time? There's loads of valid reasons perfectly functioning instruments would need to be checked for a warm or cool bias and then adjust the data accordingly.

You have presented the exact reason why, the task of accurately measuring global temperatures within 1 degree Celsius tolerance over 130 years of records is impossible. That is of course unless you do a little bit of fudging here and there.

Bias is another oft used word in this argument.

We are talking about UCAR's own figures which state that average, over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed (0.85ºC) since 1880.

Doesn't that bring a smile to your face? It does mine!

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Glaciers say we are getting warmer. No they do honest I had a chat with one the other day it made far more sense than some of the drivel spouted by deniers recently.

Have a quick chat to Pine Island Glacier and the Himalayan glaciers, as they told me they where feeling a bit chilly of late.

They also have something to say about drivel too.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Kali74

That would be true if the raw data weren't easily available.

Yes but the raw data is considered to be unreliable,right! or should I say inconvenient, a word often used in this argument.

Is the instrument in the city, is it in a valley, a mountain top, does it sit in the shade, in the sun, in a box, a ventilated box, out in the open... What time of day is it checked, is it checked every day at the same time? There's loads of valid reasons perfectly functioning instruments would need to be checked for a warm or cool bias and then adjust the data accordingly.

You have presented the exact reason why, the task of accurately measuring global temperatures within 1 degree Celsius tolerance over 130 years of records is impossible. That is of course unless you do a little bit of fudging here and there.

Bias is another oft used word in this argument.

We are talking about UCAR's own figures which state that average, over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed (0.85ºC) since 1880.

Doesn't that bring a smile to your face? It does mine!

Your logic befuddles them. The attitude of Phage for one, reminds me of the show X files where Fox Mulder's poster behind his desk stated " I want to believe". I took it to mean one thing but Phage wants to believe the lie and tries to belittle the senses of any who can challenge that lie. He has a following or as some would call it "sycophants" who wait on his every post. I find myself caught up in the ones he makes SOME semblance of sense when he posts. This time he is supporting the losing side and will only believe it when the ice keeps hanging around defying prediction after prediction by the "cult of man made warming". His ilk have totally failed to look at all the facts and get peeved when challenges to this falsified world paradigm emerge. Waiting to pounce like a cat on it's prey.

Star for you!

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: network dude

It's almost as if very little thought was put into how we measure ambient temperature.

Try telling that to a glacier they have a very neat way of indicating mean temperature changes, guess what:

Glaciers say we are getting warmer. No they do honest I had a chat with one the other day it made far more sense than some of the drivel spouted by deniers recently.

Ok, while I am at it, I will attempt to tell a glacier to forgive the inner Earth for responding to the Sun. The literature in the Journals when I came up showed how the activity of the Sun affects the geothermal properties of the Earth. Buy that talking glacier and the big-foot's there are sure saying they are warmer.
STILL we need that car and we continue to get CRICKETS about it in even though it is in the OP and the subsequent reminders that tech does exist that is proven to work so well that it cannot be denied. Why would Al Gore ignore that car which actually was built by Nissan of North America for the University he was "teaching" if he is so concerned about the burning of oil and coal? Oh yeah maybe the money he can make off of Carbon taxes...... The dots are getting closer together for the realist out here who see this hoax for what it is.

a reply to: Justoneman

We are most certainly on an uphill battle, given the billions spent on perpetrating this lie.

Common sense and logic appears to have failed a large proportion of the human population.

We a dealing with brainwashed victims and worse. There are those who know the truth of all this and trust me, Karma never gets confused.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Justoneman

We are most certainly on an up hill battle, given the billions spent on perpetrating this lie. Common sense and logic seems to have gone out the window. We a dealing with brainwashed victims and worse. There are those who know the truth of all this, and trust me, Karma is never confused.

Not in Europe so much now, but surely there are those in the US and Australia whom seem to be on the Koolaid. I notice a lot of Canadians are very hopeful we can warm the planet enough so they can grow food and enjoy a more temperate climate. These guys will go hey there is a drought in the west, oh you mean the "high Desert". "NO" they will say "California", then I would point out that is where a famous place known as Death Valley desert is located. It was a desert before we came here so even droughts in the desert are now examples to some of the brainwashed warmer crowd.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: network dude

You have a temperature probe. It's not an expensive thing. Then you question the accuracy of said probe. So you install a secondary probe of a different type to verify. If you find a discrepancy, you REPLACE the malfunctioning probe and disregard the data.

Who said the instruments were malfunctioning? A bias is not the same thing as a malfunction. But apart from that, how does new instrumentation aid in trend analysis over the past 75 years?

Well now that you ask. It seems you implied that earlier, right here correct or not?

"Well, that's because there are regulations on emissions. There are no regulations on attempting to produce data on temperatures when it is known that the stations (some of which have been in place for 50 years) have inherent biases. But, as you have pointed out, the raw data is available. "

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sunwolf

No.
Data which is shown to be completely unreliable is not used.

Source please. You're digging a bigger whole to climb out of Phage IMHO.

a reply to: Justoneman

An example of clever manipulation is to cloud the issue of pollution with CO2. Of course we know that mankind is messing up the planet, I have never argued otherwise. The release of toxic chemicals and radiation is outrageous and will destroy us without intervention.

This whole CO2 rubbish is deflecting from the real problems we face. We can't be individually held responsible for all that though, and the onus comes back on industry or rather the corporations that run the industry to pay for it.

If they need money for funds to stop the world being polluted by pesticides, life destroying nuclear energy and all the other industrial pollutants and deforestation, then they need to be honest and say so rather than treat us like idiots with this scam.

Given the amount spent on this propaganda, they could have funded that all by themselves a few times over, so I question what their real motives are.

a reply to: kennyb72

Kenny, along that line of thinking we now have what the EPA calls "Best Available Control Technology" BACT. Now, for just a few dollars per ton of pollutant we get that cleaner environment that also ends up helping industry avoid even more costly lawsuits from citizens who can come in with data from their Dr's showing the exposure they received from the drinking water for example was worth compensation from the courts. For example, Acid Rain data has trended up in the over a Quarter of a century I have been involved with the analysis. Initially when I began this career, the pH was averaging in the 4's with no samples above 6. This data is not reported to the public to keep them from being alarmed in this case, (why that but not the CO2 huh?). I can release the data on freedom of information requests. Lately, the last 5 years my data shows that the pH is above 5 with some of the samples reporting in above 7.. I feel the controls actually worked and our computer modeling works a little better because we get to look at the area affected which is regional instead of national or global and the stacks location and output can be easily put into the model with wind rose information. EPA wants even more on the coal stacks which is not needed now but coal ash and other concerns i posted in this thread have me saying I want miss it when it IS gone.

Didn't you get the memo? Corporate called and we're not calling it, "global warming" anymore. The new slogan is " Climate Change" and the global warming is the reason we're all freezing our A$$ off. I know, I know it's insane but those dumb a$$es will believe it.