New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

Their methods get questioned all of the time in the academic community. That's part of the process.

Data is not falsified...at least there isn't a conspiracy to falsify data. Like I said, the data is challenged all of the time in the academic community. And yes, data is "manipulated" all of the time. In fact, almost all data is adjusted to some degree. It has to be. For example, you can't just take all of the raw surface observations over the last 100 years and use it as a proxy for the global mean temperature. If you did warming would look much worse than it is because of the urban heat island effect. Or, take the satellite data...a lot of it comes from polar orbiters that do not sweep past the same location at the same time everyday. They have to adjust the data to account for diurnal effects. I think even you realize that this HAS to be done. This is a big reason why the RSS group had to release version 4.0 of their satellite dataset. The academic community didn't like that version 3.0 used numerical weather prediction techniques to solve the dirunal effects of the orbital decays. So instead they used other satellite data from other sources as a means of calibrating their anomaly data. I think even you would agree that this is LESS adjustment than the previous method yet because it shows more warming all of sudden it's fraud. This is what I mean when I say people just want to criticize the result because they don't understand the method. They just want to tell the experts that they must have screwed up, but don't even bother to learn how they came to that result. And again, all of this is going on transparently in the academic community. All journal publications are available to the public.

 

....and laughing all the way to the bank.

That's over $17 million in US dollars.

 

And when you are free to adjust the data, bad data to begin with as you noted, you are free to make it say what you want it to say.

Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.

Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/31/australia-weather-bureau-caught-tampering-with-climate-numbers/

 

Neither of these refute 90%+ of published climate scientists.

 

They sure refute the data they use and that in essence refutes tthem. Head in sand noted.

 

Funny. Knowing, however, that the data being used to fuel the predictive models makes their output highly questionable. So, while it won't "refute" studies, it certainly call their data and data production and prognostication quite tenuous. Perhaps the better observation is that the studies themselves don't require refutation given that the input data is so highly manipulated.

 

Head in sand? Cite the studies that used this specific Australian data that was "tampered with". Show he how many studies are fraudulent due to it this data which used the faulty equipment.

The source for your article shows appropriate steps were taken to solve the issue, and no incorrect data was interrupted, with no major study using it.

You've got a long way to go in disproving the overwhelming evidence and 90%+ of scientists.

 

No, you're not allowed to make the data say what you want. That is fraud and the academic and research community vehemently opposes and repudiates that. Adjusting data is a normal practice in all disciplines of science. You just have to make sure the method of the adjustment is will likely lead to a more correct result. The result is what it is. It's the methods used that got you there that are heavily criticized. And not adjusting the data at all often leads to a less correct result.

 

First the Brits, now the Aussies manipulating data to keep the Global Warming gravy train alive. How bad do you need to get ripped off before you figure it out?

 

Actually, steps were taken to remove the data, which would have effected the trending data the BOM develop, hence not specifically a study so much as the every day communication credibility they now don't enjoy. Of course, that will be lost on you, and of course having been caught on a specific day doesn't mean that the algorithms mis-record other daily inputs. It also doesn't mean that they don't. So, the veracity of the data is in question.

So, the BOM folks assert the infra was "faulty" and yet the historic record suggests that the equipment was in fact working correctly. So, to cover the intentional mis-recording of the data, the BOM are willing to spend money to replace infra instead of admitting to their own process which intentionally manipulates data. And because this intentionally manipulated data makes it's way into things like other services data like GIST NOAA it effects other data sets that are used to express larger model presentations. You get that right?

We know that NOAA/NASA are doing the same thing, as has been demonstrated many times.

 

Actual results is a less correct result?

 

What do you mean by "actual results"?

 

I just read the article. It uses the term "manipulate" with the negative connotation that the data was fraudulently truncated. That's not what happened here. It was their automated quality control algorithm that truncated the low the reading. I agree that using a hard cutoff of -10C for quality control was too aggressive. They realized it too and reinstated the -10.4C reading once it was validated. I think there is a big misunderstanding here about what constitutes fraudulent manipulation and standard quality control practice. There is nothing alarming about what happened here. In fact, I suspect many weather offices have a policy of forcing a human review on any reading that would constitute a record high or low. That's how it's done here in US. The NWS automatically reviews all record reports. Do you disagree? Do you think we should take every record reading verbatim accuracy be damned?

 

I think we should any data tbat has to be manipulated especially by those with agendas with a grain of salt and not create huge upheavals in our economies and socities on them.

 

Raw data.

 

Yeah okay. That means you have to scrap nearly all satellite data and reanalysis datasets since they're heavily post processed. You're left with mostly raw surface observations that are contaminated with urban heat island effects. But what do you do with the random erroneous readings though? Or stations with poor siting and poor instrumentation? Just add it all up and hope for the best?

 

"A similar failure wiped out a reading of 13 degrees Fahrenheit at Thredbo Top on July 16, even though temperatures at that station have been recorded as low as 5.54 degrees Fahrenheit."

Algorithm?

Really?

First "the automated quality control algorithm" outputs one T, then another T, then disappears.

It is just happened that somebody was watching and new how to press Ctrl-Print screen, and was not lazy to do, as I was lazy a few times over NOAA output.

Otherwise the manipulators would get away again.

And so they get caught every other week and every other month.

"She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend."

Do you see any objection to this analyses?

The manipulation was too obvious to object.

But keep on lying and spinning.

 

Neither another proof that 90% of published climate scientists are crooks is refutable.

 

Yes we know, when Climategate was leaked the academic community investigated itself and found that academic standards were not violated.

Anyone with common sense who read the email laughed.

That is over $17 Million http://politicalforum.com/index.php...te-change-data.509557/page-18#post-1067802646.

Let's say $7 will go as a kick back, but it is over$10 Million for doing nothing, zero, zich, just having a bunch of graduate students write peer reviewed publications and studies for free.

The academic community needs a new organizer, it has no credibility.

 

YAWN''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

 

Observed results.

Post-modernism asserts that claims to knowledge and truth are products of social, historical or political discourses or interpretations, and are therefore contextual or socially constructed. So when the thermometer doesn't support their theory, they reject the thermometer though they do love to cloak their social theories under the mantle of "science".

As Derrida famously writes: "Il n'y a pas d'hors-texte (there is no such thing as outside-of-the-text)."

Temperature readings that do not support the doomsday theory, therefore, do not exist, and since they do not exist they can be ignored or "adjusted" until they do fit, at which time they do exist.

Noam Chomsky counters that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals do not respond like people in other fields when asked, "what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc.?...If these requests can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: 'to the flames'."

Philosopher Daniel Dennett declared, "Postmodernism, the school of 'thought' that proclaimed 'There are no truths, only interpretations' has largely played itself out in absurdity, but it has left behind a generation of academics in the humanities disabled by their distrust of the very idea of truth and their disrespect for evidence, settling for 'conversations' in which nobody is wrong and nothing can be confirmed, only asserted with whatever style you can muster."

So, they may be safely ignored and the unadjusted temperature readings, believed.

 

Quality controlled or raw? That's the crux of the matter. The argument is that if that if an instrument reads a value that has never been seen before at that site or is otherwise suspect then it should not be flagged and investigated. It should always be assumed to be accurate regardless of whether it is or isn't. Is that your opinion? That we should not have any quality control procedures at all?

 

Here, in the considered event of another fraud by the academic community the instrument reads the value within the range seen before:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...te-change-data.509557/page-19#post-1067817386

In your hypothetical case which has no relation to the reality of the discussed events of another fraud by the academic community the instrument has to flagged and investigated.

And that is what the academic community had some sense to do according to the article.

You have no sense of reality.

 

Same problem as the main point of the article. The quality control flagged the value and forced a manual review. The value was not "wiped out" as claimed by the article. The low temperature field was left blank to indicate that a manual review was pending. I saw the screenshots. By the way, the manual review confirmed the -10.4C reading at that site on July 16th. I just checked.

That's not what happened. The screenshots are available on the internet if you know where to look. They clearly show an instantaneous reading of -10.4C at 5:30am, but on a completely different page where the daily summary is shown the low is blanked out to indicate that a manual review is pending. At no time did the site "output one T, then another T, then disappears". Don't take my word for it though. Research it yourself.

Great. Let's fix the problem then. But first let's actually make sure it's a problem. Show me the research in question from which this claim was based so that we can all comment on the methods used in the study. I tried finding "her" study and it's no where to be found. You say the manipulation was obvious so I trust you were able to find the study. Tell me what part of the study caught your attention. How did she arrive at her conclusion? And what specifically did she find fault with? Also, who is "she"?

Like I said, the raw data is out there if you know where to look. To the best of my knowledge I have not misrepresented anything. If you do find the raw data and it contradicts something I've said then please bring it to my attention.

 

Of course. What good is an instrument reading if the instrument is not calibrated.

No it isn't. No one is arguing for readings from un-calibrated instruments.[/QUOTE]