Author Topic: Data contamination and future usefullness  (Read 6004 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #50 on: September 05, 2017, 09:05:30 PM »
It's rather amusing the depths some have to go to and still don't even touch on the subject. For those that came in late and don't (or don't want to) understand the actual question re data contamination and this clearly is referring to the following 2 (yes just 2 simple) questions

1) Why would anybody want to cap the minimum temperature, where any temperature below a certain value is automatically assigned a pre-conceived (warmer) set value by default?

2) Why would anybody use (as official records) the instantaneous maximum temperate values contradictory to the WMO standards.

For those hiding behind credibility claims then here's your chance to provide valid, creditable and factual reasons for these 2 very simple questions and no doubt one wouldn't even have to be an accredited scientist to explain why this exaggeration to dupe the public has occurred  \:D/   

OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry.
So I dug around for something that best-fits your inane hypothesis. I found a refutation of what sounds like your argument at Climate Denier Myth #135, from the middle link I provided in my previous post.
It appears that you are simply dredging up a long-refuted allegation regarding the CRU brouhaha.
I'll link and provide a partial quote below (now if you would only provide a shred of your own info for validation)
.
The actual text of this link is somewhat longer than I quote, read it. (BTW, most material on this link is written by credentialed PhD climate scientists, not tv&radio bloviator scripters)

https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

"   

Did CRU tamper with temperature data?

Link to this page
What the science says...
The Independent Climate Change Email Review went back to primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. This means not only was CRU not hiding anything, but it had nothing to hide. Though CRU neglected to provide an exact list of temperature stations, it could not have hid or tampered with data.
Climate Myth...
CRU tampered with temperature data
"So recently the media picked up on the fact that CRU deleted the raw data for this important global temperature set long ago. We have known this for some time now. The interesting point is that it also seems each time they come across a new dataset it is simply replaced. So what we have is a process which allows the systematic choosing of ever warmer records over time which is so convoluted nobody can figure out what really happened." (The Air Vent)
Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009. Though some of these "Climategate" emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The most comprehensive inquiry, the Independent Climate Change Email Review, did something the media completely failed to do: it put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. Its general findings (summarised here) were that the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the advice given to policymakers, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness.

One set of allegations against CRU concern its main area of research, the instrumental temperature record CRUTEM. The CRUTEM analysis is very similar to those produced by independent groups such as NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Nevertheless, the contrarians allege that CRU manipulated data to fabricate a global warming trend; that CRU prevented critics from accessing the raw data and other information required to check its conclusions; and that CRU director Phil Jones failed to admit having cited fraudulent data twenty years ago. Thus they claim CRUTEM cannot be trusted.

To create the CRUTEM surface temperature analysis, CRU scientists take temperature data from 4,138 stations, and for each station they calculate the mean temperature for 1961-1990 and temperature anomalies relative to that period. They then arrange all this data into a 5x5 degree grid. This process requires that adjustments be made to account for sources of error such as changing station locations or urban heat island effect."
"Thus the Review demonstrated that CRU was not hiding anything: sufficient data was available to replicate CRU’s results, and any competent researcher would be able to analyse it. Furthermore, they had nothing to hide: both adjusted and unadjusted data yielded very similar results to CRUTEM, and CRU’s homogenisation adjustments make no significant difference to the global average. Although the Review stopped short of drawing scientific conclusions, it appears that CRU’s conclusions are robust.

Based on this, the Review concluded (its emphasis):

CRU was not in a position to withhold access to [temperature] data or tamper with it. We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis.

On the allegation of biased station selection and analysis, we find no evidence of bias. Our work indicates that analysis of global land temperature trends is robust to a range of station selections and to the use of adjusted or unadjusted data. The level of agreement between independent analyses is such that it is highly unlikely that CRU could have acted improperly to reach a predetermined outcome. [1.3.1]

This is stated more explicitly in Chapter 6:

It is impossible for a third party to tamper improperly with the data unless they have also been able to corrupt the GHCN and NCAR sources. We do not consider this to be a credible possibility, and in any case this would be easily detectable by comparison to the original NMO records [6.4]"


https://skepticalscience.com/CRU-tampered-temperature-data.htm

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #51 on: September 05, 2017, 09:41:20 PM »
Obviously Jstx you have no answers, just more mindless waffle and nothing actually dealing with the subject, no wonder CC advocates don't do themselves any favours.

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #52 on: September 05, 2017, 09:46:32 PM »
Jaycym,
  Sometimes it gets to a point when enough is enough... We've seen numerous times that magical "95%" figure thrown out. If so, has anyone amassed a list of ALL those who have sign on to this? Kinda of comical when people throw statements out like the 95% figure or  that over 5000 scientists agree on CC... Fine for the first time but when you hear that statement over an over again, people become suspicious.. They want to see a complete list of all of those scientist who supposedly have sign on...

I believe there is a happy medium that can be reached but it may well be too late....

Man , I miss the days on this forum just talking about PWS..... smh....
 

Well, the sound of crickets is kind of noisy here, so here goes:
(since WXF doesn't seem to allow multi-quotes, I'll put some of the text from the link provided below on Mattk's similar comment in the next post here)

OK, here you go. It's apparently 97%, not 95% (that 95% comes from another myth).
Was debunked long ago, CD'er myth number 4, et al.:
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

From the almost 200 item long list (and growing) of "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths", here:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 09:56:08 PM by Jstx »

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2017, 09:54:57 PM »
Jaycym, How does setting an absolute minimum temperature that no data can be recorded below be justified as "data adjustment", this practice does not make the data more accurate it simply contaminates the data yet you say it's actually desirable to do this, WHY does a whole country need to manipulate/contaminate data away from reality?

So by your admission the government/s are now the minority and cheats affecting an absolute majority, and for what purpose, something you still have to justify and no the 95% rubbish doesn't cut it anymore, the 95% claim has become an urban myth perpetrated by some who have no answers and still trying to hang on to ill conceived perceptions.

I am still waiting for an answer to why if the temp is actually, really say -12deg C why it is only recorded as -10Deg C ??????????????????   

Link to refutation of your above "95%" bull is in my post above, read the whole thing, essentials quoted below.

"What the science says...
The 97% consensus has been independently confirmed by a number of different approaches and lines of evidence.

Climate Myth...
97% consensus on human-caused global warming has been disproven

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (Anthony Watts)
Communicating the expert consensus is very important in terms of increasing public awareness of human-caused climate change and support for climate solutions.  Thus it's perhaps not surprising that Cook et al. (2013) and its 97% consensus result have been the subject of extensive denial among the usual climate contrarian suspects. After all, the fossil fuel industry, right-wing think tanks, and climate contrarians have been engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding the expert climate consensus for over two decades.  For example, Western Fuels Association conducted a half-million dollar campaign in 1991 designed to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact).’

The 97% Consensus is a Robust Result
Nevertheless, the existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence.
  For example, Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004.  Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research.  Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts.  Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.

In addition to these studies, we have the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorsing the consensus.  Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming.  Only one has ever rejected the consensus - the American Association of Petroleum Geologists - and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.

In short, the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result, found using several different methods in various studies over the past decade.  It really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, and denying it is, well, denial. "

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #54 on: September 05, 2017, 09:58:09 PM »
Obviously Jstx you have no answers, just more mindless waffle and nothing actually dealing with the subject, no wonder CC advocates don't do themselves any favours.

"OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry."

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #55 on: September 05, 2017, 10:12:30 PM »
Obviously Jstx you have no answers, just more mindless waffle and nothing actually dealing with the subject, no wonder CC advocates don't do themselves any favours.

"OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry."

More side stepping, some wouldn't know reality from rorting, then some don't care either, doesn't fit their own one sided vision.

Just gotta luv the way some talk about reality but wouldn't even know what that was. So far and this is reality official meteorological departments of countries have set a defined minimum temperature that no station can record below, can you imagine that if it's 12 deg below then oh no we can't have that it can only be 10 deg below so the official minimum temperate is going to be 10 deg below not 12 deg below as in reality it actually was, that's reality buddy and until you actually can accept this is occurring, yes in reality then all your other chatter is nothing but a smoke screen.

It's a simple question but you can't even provide a credibility explanation for exaggeration of and contamination of data.       

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #56 on: September 05, 2017, 10:46:49 PM »
Obviously Jstx you have no answers, just more mindless waffle and nothing actually dealing with the subject, no wonder CC advocates don't do themselves any favours.

"OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry."

More side stepping, some wouldn't know reality from rorting (not an English word that I'm familiar with?), then some don't care either, doesn't fit their own one sided vision.

Just gotta luv the way some talk about reality but wouldn't even know what that was. So far and this is reality official meteorological departments of countries have set a defined minimum temperature that no station can record below (do you have even one verifiable source, cite, link, one country, (anything at all ?) for this repeated assertion of yours? IE: reasonable PROOF of it or it's creditable source?), can you imagine that if it's 12 deg below then oh no we can't have that it can only be 10 deg below so the official minimum temperate is going to be 10 deg below not 12 deg below as in reality it actually was, that's reality buddy and until you actually can accept this is occurring, yes in reality then all your other chatter is nothing but a smoke screen (you seem to be the one in a fact-free, uncited, unattributed fog).

It's a simple question but you can't even provide a credibility explanation for exaggeration of and contamination of data.     

Besides, where I live the temps never get anywhere near 10-12F, this last decade or so of winters is a sort of local proof that GW IS occurring, might have been one night below the freezing point for a few hours last one, a frost IOW.. Didn't used to be like that, but then I'm from even further south..

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2017, 11:12:09 PM »
Strange that hey? Recent temperatures down south are well below average so is this local proof that GW is not occurring or doesn't this count :) Can't have it both way hey but some would like to think so.

Actually one would have thought if the readings were not what was expected then most logical people would have re-calibrated the sensors or even replaced them but to simply insert an arbitrary minimum cut-off is really playing people for fools, nobody should be fooled by this manipulative stunt but there appears new stunts are continually being dreamt up that supports the thinking not the facts.

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #58 on: September 06, 2017, 12:22:19 AM »
Strange that hey? Recent temperatures down south are well below average so is this local proof that GW is not occurring or doesn't this count :) Can't have it both way hey but some would like to think so.

[Really? Actually, I just did a quick check of nearby climate reports here. Guess what? Recent years keep trending temperatures upward. Like most other places. ]
http://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php

Actually one would have thought if the readings were not what was expected then most logical people would have re-calibrated the sensors or even replaced them but to simply insert an arbitrary minimum cut-off is really playing people for fools, nobody should be fooled by this manipulative stunt but there appears new stunts are continually being dreamt up that supports the thinking not the facts.
[Again, PROOF of this allegation? Have you ever even been court, maybe in something like a small claims court? You still have to prove your (probable baseless) assertions.]

Earth to Mattk...

"The State of the Climate is an annual report that is primarily led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center (NOAA/NCDC), located in Asheville, North Carolina, but whose leadership and authorship spans roughly 100 institutions in about 50 countries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_the_Climate


You can download your very own copy of the 2016 issue just released in June from here (and older ones too):

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate/
"State of the Climate

An international, peer-reviewed publication released each summer, the State of the Climate is the authoritative annual summary of the global climate published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.


The report, compiled by NOAA’s Center for Weather and Climate at the National Centers for Environmental Information is based on contributions from scientists from around the world. It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments located on land, water, ice, and in space.

State of the Climate in 2016

This is the twenty-seventh issuance of the annual assessment now known as State of the Climate. Surface temperature and carbon dioxide concentration, two of the more publicly recognized indicators of global-scale climate change, set new highs during 2016, as did several surface and near-surface indicators and essential climate variables. Notably, the increase in CO2 concentration was the largest in the nearly six-decade observational record."


Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #59 on: September 06, 2017, 12:34:01 AM »
But you haven't even tried to answer the query, funny that, all spin and no substance.

And of course they keep trending upwards because the clowns continue to contaminate, manipulate and homogenize the real data, talk about left view, it's like yes the temps are getting warmer because the data shows it, when the data shows the temps are dropping, oh no no no we'll just ignore those, that's not what we need to con the masses. Actually it was NOAA who were caught out fiddling both ends of the spectrum before the rest of the world fiddlers caught on.

Honestly CC is really becoming a joke portrayed by those that do nothing else than spiel the flawed rhetoric     

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #60 on: September 06, 2017, 05:38:49 AM »
Obviously Jstx you have no answers, just more mindless waffle and nothing actually dealing with the subject, no wonder CC advocates don't do themselves any favours.

"OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry."

More side stepping, some wouldn't know reality from rorting, then some don't care either, doesn't fit their own one sided vision.

Just gotta luv the way some talk about reality but wouldn't even know what that was. So far and this is reality official meteorological departments of countries have set a defined minimum temperature that no station can record below, can you imagine that if it's 12 deg below then oh no we can't have that it can only be 10 deg below so the official minimum temperate is going to be 10 deg below not 12 deg below as in reality it actually was, that's reality buddy and until you actually can accept this is occurring, yes in reality then all your other chatter is nothing but a smoke screen.

It's a simple question but you can't even provide a credibility explanation for exaggeration of and contamination of data.     

Sorry, but can you read? You have been asked numerous times to provide links to sources where we can read about your minimums and maximums. From what you provided all I can say is that you made it up.
Not to mention that as I told you before, I doubt you have access to first-hand, unadjusted data from over 650 professional stations like me, where I can clearly see some trends.

But anyway, unless you provide some links, you are just making an idiot of yourself.

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #61 on: September 06, 2017, 06:30:33 AM »
Obviously Jstx you have no answers, just more mindless waffle and nothing actually dealing with the subject, no wonder CC advocates don't do themselves any favours.

"OK,Mattk, it's hard to ferret out what you're actually yammering about because you have steadfastly refused to provide any corroborating source evidence or links of your allegations; contrary to all norms of factual, reality-based argument and scientific inquiry."

More side stepping, some wouldn't know reality from rorting, then some don't care either, doesn't fit their own one sided vision.

Just gotta luv the way some talk about reality but wouldn't even know what that was. So far and this is reality official meteorological departments of countries have set a defined minimum temperature that no station can record below, can you imagine that if it's 12 deg below then oh no we can't have that it can only be 10 deg below so the official minimum temperate is going to be 10 deg below not 12 deg below as in reality it actually was, that's reality buddy and until you actually can accept this is occurring, yes in reality then all your other chatter is nothing but a smoke screen.

It's a simple question but you can't even provide a credibility explanation for exaggeration of and contamination of data.     

Sorry, but can you read? You have been asked numerous times to provide links to sources where we can read about your minimums and maximums. From what you provided all I can say is that you made it up.
Not to mention that as I told you before, I doubt you have access to first-hand, unadjusted data from over 650 professional stations like me, where I can clearly see some trends.

But anyway, unless you provide some links, you are just making an idiot of yourself.

Same time, next night and again the old hedgehog trick, asking for links ... again. What didn't the last one go down well with you but then it is hard for some to deal with reality and outside of their own comfort zone. As you have admitted you know nothing about the questions here as if you did you would have answered them but still continue to duck and dive with continual irrelevance and out of context quotes that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject and queries raised.

Next you are probably going to deny NOAA were caught out fiddling the data :)

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #62 on: September 06, 2017, 06:38:50 AM »
So what does the "experts" think about Electronic sensor devices compared to the ago old liquid-in-glass thermometers such as mercury thermometers? 

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2017, 06:39:57 AM »
Excuse me if Im blind, the only link you ever provided or source you cited was a blog of some Australian former high school principal and Im afraid that wont do for me.

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2017, 06:55:32 AM »
Excuse me if Im blind, the only link you ever provided or source you cited was a blog of some Australian former high school principal and Im afraid that wont do for me.

So far you've added absolutely nothing to the query, except go off on a CC tangent, not a dam thing to do with CC so try and put some input into the subject and that includes the electronic sensors, like what's the point of recording instantaneous max temps and then compare them to historical averaged values, what's the point of putting a lower ceiling on min temps?   

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #65 on: September 06, 2017, 06:56:36 AM »
Surely somebody must have some real reasoning for this?

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #66 on: September 06, 2017, 07:03:56 AM »
Excuse me if Im blind, the only link you ever provided or source you cited was a blog of some Australian former high school principal and Im afraid that wont do for me.

So far you've added absolutely nothing to the query, except go off on a CC tangent, not a dam thing to do with CC so try and put some input into the subject and that includes the electronic sensors, like what's the point of recording instantaneous max temps and then compare them to historical averaged values, what's the point of putting a lower ceiling on min temps?

What have you added other then starting a flame discussion, with no links or sources. Now when asked for some you are trying to change topic.

Lost case really....

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #67 on: September 06, 2017, 07:25:37 AM »
Still can't see the connection between the queries hey? Subject hasn't changed, obviously neither has the lack of response which at this stage would tend to show some are out of their comfort zone and obviously for very good reasons as some simply don't have the experience to admit what is occurring with met data.   

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #68 on: September 06, 2017, 07:44:42 AM »
OK, one more time.

Can you please provide links to credible sources, which describe details about what you suggest (i.e. all the stuff about data manipulation)
And please try to avoid just saying "it is so" -which is what you have been doing up until now

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #69 on: September 06, 2017, 04:31:43 PM »
OK, one more time.

Can you please provide links to credible sources, which describe details about what you suggest (i.e. all the stuff about data manipulation)
And please try to avoid just saying "it is so" -which is what you have been doing up until now

Here go play with this link for a while https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records has nothing to do with the subject but if it's a link you want then it's a link you have, are you in denial yet.

Now back to the subject, why would anybody want to record instantaneous max temps and cap lower min temps, this has nothing to do with a link it's purely a question and if you don't have an opinion then it's better just to say so rather than confuse yourself

Offline Jáchym

  • Meteotemplate Developer
  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 8605
    • Meteotemplate
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #70 on: September 06, 2017, 04:46:07 PM »
OK, one more time.

Can you please provide links to credible sources, which describe details about what you suggest (i.e. all the stuff about data manipulation)
And please try to avoid just saying "it is so" -which is what you have been doing up until now

Here go play with this link for a while https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-records has nothing to do with the subject but if it's a link you want then it's a link you have, are you in denial yet.

Now back to the subject, why would anybody want to record instantaneous max temps and cap lower min temps, this has nothing to do with a link it's purely a question and if you don't have an opinion then it's better just to say so rather than confuse yourself

Dont see anything about temps being capped at -12, but Im probably blind again.

Either way, I have lot of first-hand non-manipulated data and it speaks quite clearly. If someone in the past manipulated something it is of course undesirable (again, difference between manipulation and adjustment), but Im 100% sure it happened on both sides (i.e. many deniers also use manipulated and biased data to prove their point).

In my country we dont manipulate anything and global warming is a very clear trend.

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #71 on: September 06, 2017, 04:57:40 PM »
Question for Jáchym. Why would anybody want to record instantaneous max temps and cap lower min temps, this has nothing to do with a link it's purely a question and if you don't have an opinion then it's better just to say so rather than confuse yourself.

Also why would you compare instantaneous data to historical averaged data based on slower moving technology.

Offline Jstx

  • Senior Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Baby the Rain Must Fall
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #72 on: September 06, 2017, 08:31:11 PM »
[assembled most of this for this thread, then Mattk got busy and overlapped hisself on another one, so am simply repeating this here from original on the other.  (Mattk never has any factual material, just pure conspiracy theories and parroted BS, but hell, this is almost fun, and we're building a handy reference db)]

Well gooollee Mattk, just as I was about to post this comment on your previous thread, which I've been diligently gathering and sourcing (with corroboratory links even!), you pop this one out. Oh well, I'll just C&P it over there too, most of it fits in either.

[1] These malicious attempts to accuse the meteo scientific community of falsifying 'the data' have been thoroughly debunked multiple times.
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

[2] Straight from the horse's ass, Rep. Lamar Smith is a well known anti-science politician. He also is one of the top recipients in Congress of fossil energy sector political 'donations'.
 ibid.
http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cycle=Career&cid=N00001811
http://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00001811

[3] This wholly politically motivated, stacked and twisted 'inquiry' was convened solely to attempt to discredit NOAA and other meteo agencies and groups. As with item 1 above, it has been thoroughly dissected and discredited for the cheap political assassination attempt that it is.
 ibid.

[4] But it IS just an attempt to "palm off" pure propaganda and bullchit as something of substance, when it was just a glossy coat on the usual denier turds.

For y'all unaware of what drive$ Smith, and what an anti-science, anti-logic&rationality jerk he is, here's some useful background info from Wiki (a peer-reviewed source of (usually) factual info) 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamar_S._Smith

"As the Head of the House Science Committee, Smith has been harsly criticized for promoting climate change denial, baselessly attacking scientific outlets and researchers, and receiving funding from oil and gas companies.[2][3][4][5][6][7] He was formerly a contributor to Breitbart News.[8]...
"Climate change
As of 2015, Smith has received more than $600,000 from the fossil fuel industry during his career in Congress.[53] In 2014, Smith got more money from fossil fuels than he did from any other industry.[54] Smith publicly denies global warming.[55][56][57] Under his leadership, the House Science committee has held hearings that feature the views of climate change deniers,[58] subpoenaed the records and communications of scientists who published papers that Smith disapproved of,[55] and attempted to cut NASA's earth sciences budget.[59] He has been criticized for conducting "witch hunts" against climate scientists.[54] In his capacity as Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Smith issued more subpoenas in his first three years than the committee had for its entire 54-year history.[54] In a June 2016 response letter to the Union of Concerned Scientists, Mr. Smith cited the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s as valid legal precedent for his investigation.[60][61] Smith has a lifetime score of 7% on the National Environmental Scorecard of the League of Conservation Voters.[62][63][64]
On December 1, 2016 as Chair on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he tweeted out on behalf of that committee a Breitbart article denying climate change.[65]"

Online Mattk

  • Forecaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2135
Re: Data contamination and future usefullness
« Reply #73 on: September 06, 2017, 08:36:00 PM »
Desperation, yet can't admit the facts, geez even those that did the falsifying have admitted the facts but some just don't get it.