Wooah!! Top scientists to examine "fiddled" global warming figures!!!

[Old Rocks]

Real scientists, and what they are stating;

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ol' Walleyes constantly tells lies like that. And then claims to be a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. And turns right around and tell all that the other scientists in the AGU and the Royal Society are all liars. I have posted videos of the presentations at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco since 2009. And Walleyes has constantly accused the scientists of being liars and whores. I think Walleyes prefered peer level is Billy Boob and Frankie Boy.

And satellite measurements tell us your the liar along with the rest of your ilk... And that unaltered data we do have access too...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Too Funny... The left wit morons are all up in arms at having their sacred cow held up and scrutinized... And how they act totally unhinged at their lie coming unraveled...

 

[IanC]

It's called access to the raw data you imbecile. I don't have access and neither do you. What a simpleton.

Berkeley Earth data

Berkeley Earth source files

Im not sure which part of the north island you're from so I just picked a name that most people should be familiar with.

not much warming there.

twelve breaks, three for station moves (two of which have next to zero impact according to BEST, nine empirical breaks (computer model generated arbitrarily).

after the pieces have been aligned in a more pleasing fashion.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.07
After quality control 0.18
After breakpoint alignment 0.64
Regional expectation during same months 0.83 ± 0.17


this is certainly not one of the more egregious 'adjustments' that I have seen but it still shows that most of the warming at this station in Auckland is comprised of arbitrary additions by BEST.

 

[orogenicman]

Ol' Walleyes constantly tells lies like that. And then claims to be a member of the AGU and the Royal Society. And turns right around and tell all that the other scientists in the AGU and the Royal Society are all liars. I have posted videos of the presentations at the annual AGU meeting in San Francisco since 2009. And Walleyes has constantly accused the scientists of being liars and whores. I think Walleyes prefered peer level is Billy Boob and Frankie Boy.

And satellite measurements tell us your the liar along with the rest of your ilk... And that unaltered data we do have access too...

Okay Billy Bob, post the raw data for those measurements. Let's see if you are telling the truth. And if you do have access to it, as you say, you should have no trouble posting links to it here. And since you agree that it is available, perhaps you should convince your denier friends of the fact, and save us the trouble.

 

[orogenicman]

It's called access to the raw data you imbecile. I don't have access and neither do you. What a simpleton.

Berkeley Earth data

Berkeley Earth source files

Im not sure which part of the north island you're from so I just picked a name that most people should be familiar with.

not much warming there.

twelve breaks, three for station moves (two of which have next to zero impact according to BEST, nine empirical breaks (computer model generated arbitrarily).

after the pieces have been aligned in a more pleasing fashion.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.07
After quality control 0.18
After breakpoint alignment 0.64
Regional expectation during same months 0.83 ± 0.17


this is certainly not one of the more egregious 'adjustments' that I have seen but it still shows that most of the warming at this station in Auckland is comprised of arbitrary additions by BEST.

Aukland, new Zealand is not the entire planet.

Here are the results for the entire planet from the same source:

Discussion from the source:

Discussion:''

Numerically,'our'best'estimate'for'the'global'temperature'of'2014'puts'it'slightly'above'

(by'0.01'C)'that'of'the'next'warmest'year'(2010)'but'by'much'less'than'the'margin'of'

uncertainty'(0.05'C).''Therefore'it'is'impossible'to'conclude'from'our'analysis'which'of'

2014,'2010,'or'2005'was'actually'the'warmest'year.'''

'

The'margin'of'uncertainty'we'achieved'was'remarkably'small'(0.05'C'with'95%'

confidence).'''This'was'achieved'this,'in'part,'by'the'inclusion'of'data'from'over'30,000'

temperature'stations,'and'by'the'use'of'optiized'statistical'methods.'Even'so,'the'

highest'year'could'not'be'distinguished.'That'is,'of'course,'an'indication'that'the'Earth’s'

average'temperature'for'the'last'decade'has'changed'very'little.''Note'that'the'ten'

warmest'years'all'occur'since'1998.'

 

[IanC]

It's called access to the raw data you imbecile. I don't have access and neither do you. What a simpleton.

Berkeley Earth data

Berkeley Earth source files

Im not sure which part of the north island you're from so I just picked a name that most people should be familiar with.

not much warming there.

twelve breaks, three for station moves (two of which have next to zero impact according to BEST, nine empirical breaks (computer model generated arbitrarily).

after the pieces have been aligned in a more pleasing fashion.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.07
After quality control 0.18
After breakpoint alignment 0.64
Regional expectation during same months 0.83 ± 0.17


this is certainly not one of the more egregious 'adjustments' that I have seen but it still shows that most of the warming at this station in Auckland is comprised of arbitrary additions by BEST.

Aukland, new Zealand is not the entire planet.

Here are the results for the entire planet from the same source:

Discussion from the source:

Discussion:''

Numerically,'our'best'estimate'for'the'global'temperature'of'2014'puts'it'slightly'above'

(by'0.01'C)'that'of'the'next'warmest'year'(2010)'but'by'much'less'than'the'margin'of'

uncertainty'(0.05'C).''Therefore'it'is'impossible'to'conclude'from'our'analysis'which'of'

2014,'2010,'or'2005'was'actually'the'warmest'year.'''

'

The'margin'of'uncertainty'we'achieved'was'remarkably'small'(0.05'C'with'95%'

confidence).'''This'was'achieved'this,'in'part,'by'the'inclusion'of'data'from'over'30,000'

temperature'stations,'and'by'the'use'of'optiized'statistical'methods.'Even'so,'the'

highest'year'could'not'be'distinguished.'That'is,'of'course,'an'indication'that'the'Earth’s'

average'temperature'for'the'last'decade'has'changed'very'little.''Note'that'the'ten'

warmest'years'all'occur'since'1998.'

????

you forgot to show how much of that is adjustments.

my post to cnm was in direct reference to his profile page which states he is from 'Te Ika a Maui'.


I have started many threads on the different global temp products. I dont remember you getting involved with them. if you have something to discuss about BEST I will try to add my viewpoint.

 

[orogenicman]

It's called access to the raw data you imbecile. I don't have access and neither do you. What a simpleton.

Berkeley Earth data

Berkeley Earth source files

Im not sure which part of the north island you're from so I just picked a name that most people should be familiar with.

not much warming there.

twelve breaks, three for station moves (two of which have next to zero impact according to BEST, nine empirical breaks (computer model generated arbitrarily).

after the pieces have been aligned in a more pleasing fashion.

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies 0.07
After quality control 0.18
After breakpoint alignment 0.64
Regional expectation during same months 0.83 ± 0.17


this is certainly not one of the more egregious 'adjustments' that I have seen but it still shows that most of the warming at this station in Auckland is comprised of arbitrary additions by BEST.

Aukland, new Zealand is not the entire planet.

Here are the results for the entire planet from the same source:

Discussion from the source:

Discussion:''

Numerically,'our'best'estimate'for'the'global'temperature'of'2014'puts'it'slightly'above'

(by'0.01'C)'that'of'the'next'warmest'year'(2010)'but'by'much'less'than'the'margin'of'

uncertainty'(0.05'C).''Therefore'it'is'impossible'to'conclude'from'our'analysis'which'of'

2014,'2010,'or'2005'was'actually'the'warmest'year.'''

'

The'margin'of'uncertainty'we'achieved'was'remarkably'small'(0.05'C'with'95%'

confidence).'''This'was'achieved'this,'in'part,'by'the'inclusion'of'data'from'over'30,000'

temperature'stations,'and'by'the'use'of'optiized'statistical'methods.'Even'so,'the'

highest'year'could'not'be'distinguished.'That'is,'of'course,'an'indication'that'the'Earth’s'

average'temperature'for'the'last'decade'has'changed'very'little.''Note'that'the'ten'

warmest'years'all'occur'since'1998.'

????

you forgot to show how much of that is adjustments.

my post to cnm was in direct reference to his profile page which states he is from 'Te Ika a Maui'.


I have started many threads on the different global temp products. I dont remember you getting involved with them. if you have something to discuss about BEST I will try to add my viewpoint.

You people really are desperate. Every single scientific database undergoes adjustments, calibrations, in order to be valid. This has been explained many times, and yet all you can think to do is bring it up one more time, as if doing so is going to change the facts. Pathetic.

 

[IanC]

Muller stated that ~ 1/3 of station data series had cooling trends. after homogenization they all have warming trends. perhaps you would like to post up half a dozen stations from BEST with cooling trends, preferably at least a few hundred kilometers apart.

 

[orogenicman]

Muller stated that ~ 1/3 of station data series had cooling trends. after homogenization they all have warming trends. perhaps you would like to post up half a dozen stations from BEST with cooling trends, preferably at least a few hundred kilometers apart.

It doesn't matter. ALL data must be calibrated before it is useful. Period. End of story.

 

[cnm]

this is certainly not one of the more egregious 'adjustments' that I have seen but it still shows that most of the warming at this station in Auckland is comprised of arbitrary additions by BEST.

Yeah, yeah, 'arbitrary'.

Breakpoint Adjusted Monthly Station data

During the Berkeley Earth averaging process we compare each station to other stations in its local neighborhood, which allows us to identify discontinuities and other heterogeneities in the time series from individual weather stations. The averaging process is then designed to automatically compensate for various biases that appear to be present. After the average field is constructed, it is possible to create a set of estimated bias corrections that suggest what the weather station might have reported had apparent biasing events not occurred. This breakpoint-adjusted data set provides a collection of adjusted, homogeneous station data that is recommended for users who want to avoid heterogeneities in station temperature data.

Berkeley Earth​

 

[IanC]

yes, arbitrary. I have talked about BEST methods before. perhaps you should check into their methods a bit and look at some older threads.

 

[cnm]

Yet their results match those of previous groups. What a wonder that so many groups must have alighted on such similar levels of arbitrariness. It's almost conspirational.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We are about to find out if the changes made were needed... and in rather fast time..

The full panel, from People The International Temperature Data Review Project follows. And they are all well established PHD's

"The commissioners
Terence Kealey (chairman)

Professor Terence Kealey was until recently the vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. He trained initially in London as a doctor before specialising, at Oxford, in clinical biochemical research. He subsequently lectured at Cambridge for many years before moving to Buckingham, where he was appointed professor and where he became vice-chancellor in 2001.

As well as publishing many research papers on the metabolism and cell biology of human skin, Professor Kealey has written two books to show that there is no economic case for the government funding of science.

Petr Chylek

Dr Chylek is a physicist by training. After working at universities in the USA and Canada he took up a post at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico where he now specialises in remote sensing.

He has been lead author on over 100 peer-reviewed publications in a wide range of subjects, including radiative physics, climate change, cloud and aerosol physics, laser physics and ice core analysis. He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union, Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Richard McNider

Richard McNider is Distinguished Professor of Science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. Professor McNider’s career has focused on applied environmental questions, from the Bhopal disaster to the physics of the atmospheric boundary layer. He is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and was honoured by the American Meteorological Society in 2013 for his outstanding contributions to applied meteorology. He was the founder of the atmospheric sciences program at UAH and has also served as Alabama state climatologist.

Roman Mureika

Professor Roman Mureika is a statistician who worked at the University of New Brunswick until his retirement in 2008. He brings to the inquiry his considerable expertise in identification and analysis of errors in the use of statistical methodology with particular reference to its application to environmental data

Outside his academic research, Professor Mureika has provided statistical consultancy services to bodies in both the private and public sectors and has served on the board of the Statistical Society of Canada.

Roger A Pielke Sr

Professor Roger Pielke Sr. is a meteorologist and climatologist. He is professor emeritus of Colorado State University and is currently a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

He is a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, and was previously the chairman of the AMS committee on weather forecasting and analysis. He has also occupied editorial positions at several scientific journals and is the author of over 300 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

William van Wijngaarden

Professor van Wijngaarden is a physicist who works at the University of York in Ontario, Canada. As well as researching quantum information and laser spectroscopy, he has published a substantial body of work in climatology, focusing particularly on inhomogeneities in the data records.

He has held leadership roles in the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics, the American Physical Society and the Canadian Association of Physicists and is a former chairman of his university’s senate."


Should be a very interesting out come. ALL work will be publicly available as will the report. It even asks for crowd sourcing and other professional and nonprofessional input.

Source: Inquiry Launched Into Global Temperature Data Integrity

 

[orogenicman]

Ugh

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is the United Kingdom's most high-profile climate denier group. It opposes action to mitigate climate change. Founded by Nigel Lawson,[1] it is a registered educational charity "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to mitigate global warming.[2]

Although founder Lawson claims to accept that anthropogenic global warming is occurring, this acceptance appears to be "considerably less than half-hearted;"[3] the GWPF webpage banner image sports a short-term (2001-2010) temperature graph (blue, below) giving the appearance that the world is not warming.

Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch

Might just as well put the Koch Bros. name on what those people will say.

Wow, really. How about showing the sources of funding for the skeptical science website you love so much. Or how about any other site that supports AGW bullshit. Face it silly person all sides have money from advocates. Funny how you whine and snivel when it's a group you don't like but it's A-OK for a group you do.

Now....what are those kind of people called????? Assholes? No, that's not it....ahh yeah...HYPOCRITICAL ASSHOLES! YEAH! That's the ticket!

John Podestas group is heavily funded by George Soro's and his left wing socialist organizations..

 

[orogenicman]

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating fake controversy over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate - Science - News - The Independent

The UK’s most prominent climate change denial group is launching an inquiry into the integrity of global surface temperature records.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), established by notable climate-change sceptic Lord Lawson, announced an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” would investigate the reliability of the current data.

Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed chair of the international temperature data review project.

Professor Kealey studied medicine at Oxford University before lecturing on clinical biochemistry, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of bodily fluids, at Cambridge University. It is unclear what experience he has in the field of climate change.

The other five commissioners of the data review project: Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden are all associated with North American universities.

According to the GWPF, questions have been raised about the reliability of temperature data and the extent to which recordings may have been adjusted after they were collected.

The group claims the inquiry will “review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend”.

On launching the inquiry Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested.”

Bob Ward, policy and research director at the Grantham Institute of climate change and the environment, told The Independent: “I think this is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy over the global temperature record ahead of the [UN Climate Change] Paris summit.

“The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science. It is a political move, not a serious scientific one.”

The GWPF has previously been subject to complaints that it has misled the public over climate change and used factually inaccurate material “as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas”.

Former chancellor, Lord Lawson, set up the GWPF in 2009. His book on the subject of climate change, titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, was labelled “misleading” by Sir John Houghton, a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While Bob Watson, another former head of the IPCC, said that Lord Lawson did not understand “the current scientific and economic debate”.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating 'fake controversy' over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate

Leading group of climate change deniers accused of creating fake controversy over claims global temperature data may be inaccurate - Science - News - The Independent

The UK’s most prominent climate change denial group is launching an inquiry into the integrity of global surface temperature records.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), established by notable climate-change sceptic Lord Lawson, announced an international team of “eminent climatologists, physicists and statisticians” would investigate the reliability of the current data.

Professor Terence Kealey, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham, has been appointed chair of the international temperature data review project.

Professor Kealey studied medicine at Oxford University before lecturing on clinical biochemistry, which is primarily concerned with the analysis of bodily fluids, at Cambridge University. It is unclear what experience he has in the field of climate change.

The other five commissioners of the data review project: Petr Chylek, Richard McNider, Roman Mureika, Roger A Pielke Sr and William van Winjngaarden are all associated with North American universities.

According to the GWPF, questions have been raised about the reliability of temperature data and the extent to which recordings may have been adjusted after they were collected.

The group claims the inquiry will “review the technical challenges in accurately measuring surface temperature, and will assess the extent of adjustments to the data, their integrity and whether they tend to increase or decrease the warming trend”.

On launching the inquiry Professor Kealey said: “Many people have found the extent of adjustments to the data surprising. While we believe that the 20th century warming is real, we are concerned by claims that the actual trend is different from – or less certain than – has been suggested.”

Bob Ward, policy and research director at the Grantham Institute of climate change and the environment, told The Independent: “I think this is a very obvious attempt to create a fake controversy over the global temperature record ahead of the [UN Climate Change] Paris summit.

“The only purpose of this review is to cast doubt on the science. It is a political move, not a serious scientific one.”

The GWPF has previously been subject to complaints that it has misled the public over climate change and used factually inaccurate material “as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas”.

Former chancellor, Lord Lawson, set up the GWPF in 2009. His book on the subject of climate change, titled An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, was labelled “misleading” by Sir John Houghton, a former co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While Bob Watson, another former head of the IPCC, said that Lord Lawson did not understand “the current scientific and economic debate”.

The smell of Fear and Desperation....Alarmist are in full protect mode.... CIRCLE THE WAGONS!!!!!

Too Funny....!! It too is written by a Podesta Front Group...

 

[MaryL]

WOW! WOOAH! AND YOUR PARENTS LIED ABOUT SANTA AND THE EASTER BUNNY! IF you are over the age of 40 and pay attention to little things like the local weather, you may have noticed the radical changes in the last 20 years. Oh, I see people fiddling with the facts here, those petroleum industry huggers that can't get past basic science or reality 101.

 

[skookerasbil]

Your mother left me here to mind you
Now I'm doing what I want to
Fiddling about
Fiddling about
Fiddle about!