Scientists admit throwing away raw temp data on global warming predictions

kokonut

kokonut

New Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
16,006
Reaction score
2
Now, how can other scientists verify and corroborate their own results with scientists who used the raw temp data to make their own global warming predictions that the ICPP used as a basis to move forward with their global warming fear mongering?

Climate change data dumped - Times Online
 
so they feared us into believing global warming is real.... which led to adjusting our wasteful attitude to more green-friendly behavior. so what? what are you afraid of?

that's better than fearing us into electing war-mongering politicians and paying excessive war tax

FFFFFFFFEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
 
So, I guess the melting polar caps and the disappearing mountain snow are fake too?

Sometimes it's not possible to store raw data because of storage limits - we do that ALL the time. For example, we take pictures and the file format is often JPEG which is compressed format for RAW image - as much as 80% of tonal data is discarded but they don't look degraded much because they were "adjusted" for your perception. Same with videos.

Data is often optimized and compressed, even though we have plenty of cheap storage, it is STILL a lot if you are dealing with large amount of data. As a programmer, I do that a lot. I discard data that I don't believe is relevant and it often saves space and improves performance. For example, when I was hired to do a complex program in 1999, a server side script was 8 MB. That was MASSIVE for a script in 1999. I optimized the script all the way down to a mere 740KB and altered some data to provide better performance although the user will never see anything different except faster response to their clicks.

And as a photographer, I do that a lot. I always shoot in RAW then when I am done with images, I save them as JPEGs and discard RAW files because the JPG export is simply excellent for what it shows. That's what "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data." is all about. I delete RAW after determining that the JPG provides the value we look for.

Also, note this: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."

So, why did Jones lose his own database? He is not refuting the global warming at all but actually supports the theory that we caused it. Why should CRU be responsible for his original data? What difference would it make?
 
netrox said:
So, I guess the melting polar caps and the disappearing mountain snow are fake too?

Sometimes it's not possible to store raw data because of storage limits - we do that ALL the time. For example, we take pictures and the file format is often JPEG which is compressed format for RAW image - as much as 80% of tonal data is discarded but they don't look degraded much because they were "adjusted" for your perception. Same with videos.

Data is often optimized and compressed, even though we have plenty of cheap storage, it is STILL a lot if you are dealing with large amount of data. As a programmer, I do that a lot. I discard data that I don't believe is relevant and it often saves space and improves performance. For example, when I was hired to do a complex program in 1999, a server side script was 8 MB. That was MASSIVE for a script in 1999. I optimized the script all the way down to a mere 740KB and altered some data to provide better performance although the user will never see anything different except faster response to their clicks.

And as a photographer, I do that a lot. I always shoot in RAW then when I am done with images, I save them as JPEGs and discard RAW files because the JPG export is simply excellent for what it shows. That's what "We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data." is all about. I delete RAW after determining that the JPG provides the value we look for.

Also, note this: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years."

So, why did Jones lose his own database? He is not refuting the global warming at all but actually supports the theory that we caused it. Why should CRU be responsible for his original data? What difference would it make?
Click to expand...

Arctic ice cap isn't melting away. In fact, it continues to rebound after 2007.
IJIS Web Site


The Antarctica ice cap isn't shrinking or melting away either. LOL
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/A_NEW_RECORD_FOR_ANTARCTIC_ICE_EXTENT.doc

Disappearing snow? Each region and localities either see gaining or losing snow. Europe last year saw early and record snowfall but this year the snow is late while here in western U.S. we saw early and record snowfall this year. So, much for "disappearing" snow. These climate extremes and norms shift are expected all across the globe.
 
If raw data cannot be used to ascertain and verify existing results/predictions then how can other scientists verify the processes that was done to arrive at those conclusions?

They can't.

So, this makes the predictions even more questionable. The problem is that people are willing to allow this to happen and look the other way.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph
 
I thought you said you had a background in research. If that were true, you would already know that data is thrown out all the time in all forms of studies in all fields. Outliers, in particular, are always thrown out.:roll:
 
More news but similar in nature but it's the refusal to allow public scrutiny of NASA's own "raw" climate data.


The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

Mr. Horner, a noted global warming skeptic and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

His fight mirrors one in Europe that has sprung up over the the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the UK after thousands of e-mails from the center were obtained and appear to show researchers shaving their data to make it conform to their expectation, and show efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.
Click to expand...

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - Washington Times

Why is a Federal entity refusing a FOIA request to see their climate data?
 
When you request a FOIA on data or other information from the Fed. govt they are suppose to supply you the information you requested. It doesn't take 2 years to do this. The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to respond to requests within 20 days. You do know that, right? Right? Why the hold up?
 
Let's pretend global warming wasn't real......does that justify not making an effort to nip it in the bud so that we don't have those problems in future....regardless if it is future generations it's still our responsibility.
It's really not rocket science to assume that the atmosphere will have problems at the going rate ofpollution.
This is one of those arguments you make that shows how obssessed you are. Silly stuff. Following the party line even if it kills ya. You just shot yourself in the foot again.
Transferring some internal issues.
It's not rocket science silly rabbit. It's very insulting when you try and pull dumb crap like this. We are not idiots. Limbaugh is an idiot.
 
Global warming *IS* real. So is global cooling. The thing is we don't have absolute control over how climate changes. It's simply beyond our control and the fact that CO2 make up very little of the total atmospheric volume of gases around us and above us. Unless you have some secret power that can control the sun's energy output or sumthin like that. Or stop hurricane's from developing, which by the way we had no hurricane this year. Go figure.

Not the party line, dimwit. It's purely on the basis of raw science and common sense. Haven't you noticed? Of course not.

Unless you can somehow debate equitably by providing some links to support your arguments such as "peer review" letters, journals and what not where you can demonstrably show why your case is the better argument, then fine. Otherwise, yapping as you always do won't help here. It does nothing to support your argument one whit.

Quiz of the day:
Do you know what 380 ppm for CO2 concentration means and its volume relationship with the rest of the atmospheric gases?
 
We don't have absolute control over anything. However, we do have relative control over many things, and climate change happens to be one of them.
 
There are numerous pathways where carbon sinks are released. Burning isn't the only one. Again, you are saying there is a direct cause and effect attributable to mostly on increasing CO2 concentration causing temperature to rise. If that is the case then Greenland's temperature should follow that very idea with increasing CO2, right?

Let's look at the temp history for southern Greenland from the Danish Meteorological Institute. Data from 1782 through 2007. Note that around mid to late 1920s to late 1950s you had temperaturew that were higher than in 2007 (or today) and earlier. The green and red lines are my doing just to show roughly the short temperature trends over a space of approximately 15 to 20 years and the red showing the highest temps for the earlier years.

Now, if increasing CO2 concentration has such a direct and major effect on causing temperature to rise (cause and effect), according to you Souggy (implied), then how come during the earlier years (1925-ish to 1960) had higher temperatures than the more recent ones when CO2 concentrations were about 80 ppm less back then?

greenlandgraphtemp.jpg

Picture of temperature graph from 1890 to 2007 for southern Greenland.

Again, do you know what 380 ppm for CO2 concentration means and its volume relationship with the rest of the atmospheric gases?
 
Answering a question with a question...


How is it that geologists know the percentile of CO2 in the atmosphere when referring to the different geological times and correlated that to the density of plantlife?
 
souggy said:
Answering a question with a question...
Click to expand...

No, seriously. Do you know what 380 ppm for CO2 concentration means?

Now, you say there is a direct correlation that with rising CO2 concentration will cause temperature to rise and see more higher than normal temperatures. In the Greenland case that cannot be the case. So, how can it be? You were so sure about the cause and effect of increasing CO2 will directly cause an increase in temperature. How can this happen if we had 80 ppm less 80 years ago and over a period of 20 years or so had higher temps than today? What about the Medieval Warm Period of 1000 to 1300 AD? It was substantially warmer back then and much, much less CO2 concentration as well. How can that be explained with the so called CO2 cause and effect on temperatures?
 
So far, rising CO2 cannot be the sole or major source of global warming since it cannot explain the short period of warmth 80 years ago over a span of 15 years or so. And it certainly cannot explain a longer period of warmth 300 years during the Medieval Warm Period that was much warmer then than today.
 
Responding to CP's comment from an Obama thread.

Cowpuppy said:
As of for 500,000 non-industrial years somehow being related to 15-20 years of post industrial futuristic age.....still no cookie pal. 500,000 is relatively a part of an eon.
Yes you posted it...the rarity comment in video....and then you laugh at it yourself. Shot in the foot again.
You're basically not making any sense. Tired of your nonsense and lack of integrity....have better things to do.
happy holidays.
Click to expand...

500,000 years is 1/8000 th of the total age of Earth. I don't think you understand what an "eon" is in geologic term. An "eon" is at least half a billion years for a particular time period. There are 4 eons to describe Earth's history which are subdivided further. So, it's true that 500,000 years is a part of an eon but it only makes up 1/1000th of an eon time scale. With the Antarctica ice cores going back on 500,000 years showed several ice ages or blips between massively warm and massively cold periods. It is certainly not a rarity knowing that this was a common occurence that Earth has cooled and warmed periodically over the intervening millions of years time span. The issue is the length of time between warm periods or spikes. The colder periods lasted much, much longer than the warmer periods. The video says "rarity" in terms of length of time a warm period would last compared to a cold period. The number of warm spikes isn't a rarity when considered over the eons, though it was more cold than warm. And what's really a rarity is the length of prolonged warm spell we're in that has persisted for more than 10,000 years. We're lucky to be in this prolonged warm period. Cold weather condition kills more people and causes more deaths than do warm weather.

What you don't get is that CO2 were much higher in the past without man's help. It's all about scale and that is what that video showed. Scale over time. That "hockey stick"? It's a miniscule blip in time and size compared to the rest of the history.

Your constant personal derision doesn't change anything here nor does it change the fact about Earth's history. Try (as I have already done) and use NOAA's ice core data in an Excel spreadsheet to make a graph. It comes out exactly what that video shows. How fortunate we are to be in an extended warm period of over 10,000 years when in the past it'd barely last several hundred years at a pop. No wonder the human population exploded.
 
Back
Top