Galt's Gulch

Climate Change Settled?

Posted by fivedollargold 10 years, 3 months ago to Science
16 comments | Share | Flag

Well, if you make up the numbers, I suppose you can prove the Earth is flat. Never knew that the Prez is a "flat-earther."
SOURCE URL: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/spectacular-january-data-tampering-by-our-friends-at-ncdc/

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 3 months ago
    This is why this debate is ridiculous. Altering the numbers to support a political agenda is problematic enough but what if there is an issue to be dealt with. This is crazy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by mminnick 10 years, 3 months ago
    Even supposing that the data is accurate (I will not grant that by the way), the use of a linear model to show either a warming trend or a cooling trend is not proper. As "noisy as the data is, better models such as a 3 or 5 year moving average, a sine wave model or some other nonlinear model. Using those smoothing techniques re examine the data to determine the basic data of the models and determine if the "average" value is statistically different from the expected population/sample. I would also suggest a time series be built covering all of the temperature data available.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Lucky 10 years, 3 months ago
      Actually mminnick, There is so much data that when plotted it look like a fog. Multitudes of time series analyses have been done, a wide range of answers can be achieved by choosing start and end points and by weighting data for reliability and consistency and by adjusting for changes in instrumentation and heat island effect. The R-squared number, a measure of fit with a desired relationship, is always low meaning yes you can compute a slope but it means little. There is one relationship that seems to be interesting, there is good evidence of a link between global temperature and sun-spot activity. This is anathema to the political class as it means that climate depends on the sun (who would have thought?) and there is no point in wiping out industry and population.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mminnick 10 years, 3 months ago
        Actually that is my point exactly. you can plot the data, smooth the data and make it say what ever you want it to.
        There is not enough long term data that is accurate in order to claim that there is a long term effect due to mans inability to control himself. The Australian aborigines have oral records going back thousands of years talking of hot and cold cycles. True? I don't know but there is still room for discussion and investigation, especially given the propensity of the Global warming group to fake data.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago
    Things are never settled for all time in science. We're always open to new evidence.

    I'm looking for evidence that Taco Bell is actually good for me and a benevolent god is watching over me. If I find that evidence, though, I'll be skeptical b/c I want it to be true.

    No matter how I hard I try, though, I can never convince myself that there's a controversy about whether Mountain Dew is good for me. My colleagues and I would like it, though, if you could find even a handful of doctors to say that it's good for me. I also would like to hear that the smoke from burnt solder flux is not a health risk b/c I breathe it sometimes despite the fans.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by fivedollargold 10 years, 3 months ago
      And that's the point. Making up "hockey stick" data, suppressing alternative research, refusing tenure and grants to professors who haven't drunk the global warming kook-aid; all of these are anti-scientific.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 3 months ago
        There's millions of dollars in studying climate change, but there's tens of trillions of dollars of economic activity that have an impact on the climate. So if we're arguing we can never trust science b/c the human institutions around it are biased by financial interest, then we may be vastly understating the effects of greenhouse gasses. I'm not arguing that. I accept the consensus until new evidence is found. My trouble with it is regardless of what percent of climate change is anthropogenic, I don't see what we can do about it. Cutting emissions seems like a drop in the bucket. I suspect a better solution will be found.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 10 years, 3 months ago
    So we've got two different organizations, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), which are each supposedly reporting different historical temperatures? What reason do we have to believe that the GHCN is more reliable than the NCDC?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo