Making Up Climate Data…from Junk

How can anyone actually believe any of the reported global temperature data from NASA/GISS/GHCN when the data is being made up out of thin air. The data services are using a computer algorithm to fill in missing temperature data - even from stations that have been closed for years! Where is the veracity in that methodology?

http://www.icecap.us/

[One USHCN station that KBSF did not survey was station number 17714, Ripogenus Dam in Maine, a station that closed 13 years ago. The last original observers report filed was for the month of November, 1995. Despite being closed in 1995, USHCN data for this station is publicly available until 2006 at the CDIAC website.

So how is that? The station closed in 1995 but the data continues until 2006? Did some of the world’s leading climate scientists create the data from thin air? Well, not exactly. Part of the USHCN data is created by a computer program called “filnet” which estimates missing values. According to the NOAA, filnet works by using a weighted average of values from neighboring stations. Filnet is applied after a homogeneity adjustment which is not designed to find many of these problems. Imagine that, the worlds leading climate scientists creating temperature data from surrounding stations which are biased by barbecues, bodies of water, wind blocks, jet engines, pavement, roof tops, air conditioner exhausts, inversion layers, non-standard equipment, urban heat islands, automobiles and chimneys.]

[The Respected Doofinator]

Oh, WONDERFUL!!

Just EFFING wonderful!!

People are going nuts and making themselves sick with "global warming anxiety" and the data is JUST BEING MADE UP OUT OF THIN AIR!!

The Respected Doofinator

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Meaningless babble. As usual. Only a small percentage of meteorology stations survive the 'data winnowing' to isolate problem data. I'm not sure if the problems claimed with this station are valid but certainly the data used by GISP will not include faulty or flawed data. They have rigorous procedures. Nor is the study data in conflict with other 'proxy indicators' such as ocean temperatures, expansion of the oceans and air (pressure average on mountains ), etc. The IPCC cross checked the temperature average against many other methodologies to ensure that it 'fit reality'.

Just more blowhard crap from a stupid blogger, mostly full of Himself.

[The Truth Matters]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

Meaningless babble. As usual. Only a small percentage of meteorology stations survive the 'data winnowing' to isolate problem data. I'm not sure if the problems claimed with this station are valid but certainly the data used by GISP will not include faulty or flawed data. They have rigorous procedures. Nor is the study data in conflict with other 'proxy indicators' such as ocean temperatures, expansion of the oceans and air (pressure average on mountains ), etc. The IPCC cross checked the temperature average against many other methodologies to ensure that it 'fit reality'.
Just more blowhard crap from a stupid blogger, mostly full of Himself.

You're right. Your post is just more blowhard crap from a stupid blogger, mostly full of Himself.

89% of the stations surveyed so far have had siting issues that go against the prescribed placement of stations. You actually think that is irrelevant? Is that just a small number of stations? And, yes, GISP, etc have NO IDEA which stations have flawed data. They rely on the information received to be accurate.

The NOAA/GISS/GHCN temperature records are starting to diverge to an ever greater extent from the other measuring services and the satellite data. Might this not be an indication that there is a serious flaw to their methodology/data?

[tina anne]

Another case of Garbage In Garbage Out.

[Aztecbill]

Time to use satellite data only. NOAA numbers have been in question for some time. Their dispariity from satellite data is the final nail. In any case, the current cooling trend due to solar and ocean changes can only be "fudged" for so long. GW RIP

[The Respected Doofinator]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

I'm not sure if the problems claimed with this station are valid but certainly the data used by GISP will not include faulty or flawed data.

You're not sure?

You mean you don't know?

Then how do YOU know that "the data used by GISP will not include faulty or flawed data"?

YOU DON'T KNOW!!!

And just as this article states, YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP.

A textbook illustration of the Warming Quack Nation's reliance on the narcissistic conceit that they're right rather than actual reality.

The Respected Doofinator

[AlGore The TinFoil Hatter]

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08)- Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity”(temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500% to 2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/ newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all.… The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé– of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500 to 2000%;
CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

[Cthulhu]

Aztecbill wrote:

Time to use satellite data only. NOAA numbers have been in question for some time. Their dispariity from satellite data is the final nail. In any case, the current cooling trend due to solar and ocean changes can only be "fudged" for so long. GW RIP

The satellite records disagrees with themselves more than they disagree with the surface records!

One satellite record shows 0.171C /decade warming, the other shows 0.134C/decade warming.

The surface records agree more with the high end figure there.

So I don't buy this silly idea that we should all trust the satellite measurements. For one thing they aren't measuring the surface so you are kind of comparing apples and pears.

[The Respected Doofinator]

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
The satellite records disagrees with themselves more than they disagree with the surface records!
One satellite record shows 0.171C /decade warming, the other shows 0.134C/decade warming.
The surface records agree more with the high end figure there.
So I don't buy this silly idea that we should all trust the satellite measurements. For one thing they aren't measuring the surface so you are kind of comparing apples and pears.

Good grief! It's worse than I thought.

McKitrick and Michaels did a good job of exposing all of the bias and flakiness of the surface temperature measurements:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr...

Now you tell us that the satellite data is WORSE than the surface data!!

But presumably, even though the data is crap, we should all go ahead and submit ourselves to "climate change delusion" anyway.

http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2008...

The Respected Doofinator

[Cthulhu]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Good grief! It's worse than I thought.
McKitrick and Michaels did a good job of exposing all of the bias and flakiness of the surface temperature measurements:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr...
Now you tell us that the satellite data is WORSE than the surface data!!

The two satellite records significantly disagree with each other.

It's not obvious at all they are better than the surface records. This pie in the sky idea that the satellite measurements are superior is wishful thinking.

[The Respected Doofinator]

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
The two satellite records significantly disagree with each other.
It's not obvious at all they are better than the surface records. This pie in the sky idea that the satellite measurements are superior is wishful thinking.

So, not only is the climate warming, but we don't have any good data about where and how much it's warming, so we now have a good reason to have EVEN MORE anxiety about "global climate change".

I'll bet that if we gave the UN a lot more money, they would tell us with certainty that we should be a lot more worried.

The Respected Doofinator

[LessHypeMoreFact]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
You're not sure?
You mean you don't know?
Then how do YOU know that "the data used by GISP will not include faulty or flawed data"?
YOU DON'T KNOW!!!
The Retarded Doofus

As I said, I don't have information on that specific station or whether the criticisms are valid. One has to investigate. For example, the stations might have been renamed. It may have been converted to an automatic weather station in a different list and thus no longer 'seeming' to be manned. One has to LOOK.

That in no way diminishes my point that the weather stations used by GISP are subjected to rigorous scrutiny for data problems and those with problems are rejected.Unless you can show that the station does not exist as an AWS or renamed, and WAS used in the GISP analysis, you have nothing here but hot air.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

http://www.jisao.washington.edu/greg/hcnd/sta...

Apparently, the data for the station does stop in 1995. I cannot be sure of the original claim of error.

And checking the CDIAC database for the station shows the last data of 1994
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/r3d/ushcn/state/ME/ME94...

Note that the station number is in error in the original article. It is 177174, NOT 17714. I guess they didn't want anyone checking their claims..

[Fun Facts]

When we get real facts that can be verified, then we will know what the situation is and can make good decisions about what to do.

We can't even get "consensus" on the warmest year. Is the arctic melting or has it gained a million acres of ice this year. You can read both stories. Which is correct. I look at the satellite pics.

The antarctic has been gaining ice and snow mass since we've measuring. But listen to the media and it's melting.

The sun's radiance doesn't make a difference in climate for some AGWs, but the CO2 is amplified by the same sun that doesn't make any difference? Yet solar scientist can show correlations between climate and solar radiance for the last 400 years. Who's correct.

Ice core data shows that temperature increases preceed CO2 increases as much as several hundred years. But temperatures are going down and CO2 is going up?

Are we warming up or are we moving into another ice age? Historically we are moving into another ice age. But all the AGWs say we're going to bake.

We have a lot of work to do before we know what is really going on and how to adjust to the changes.

[The Respected Doofinator]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
That in no way diminishes my point ....

Not only does it dimnish your point, it blows it right out of the water. Also blown out of the water is James Hansen's whole human caused global warming mythology based on surface weather station measements.

A torpedo into the ammo magazine.

KA-BOOOM!!! Glub. Glub. Glub.

The Respected Doofinator

[Cthulhu]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
So, not only is the climate warming, but we don't have any good data about where and how much it's warming, so we now have a good reason to have EVEN MORE anxiety about "global climate change".
I'll bet that if we gave the UN a lot more money, they would tell us with certainty that we should be a lot more worried.
The Respected Doofinator

We do have a good idea, the satellite and surface records show 0.15C/decade to 0.2C/decade warming over the past 3 decades so that must be at least fairly close.

On the otherhand the satellite records show more difference than the surface records.

You seem to wrongly think only one of the sentences of the above can be true.

[mememine69]

Cthulhu wrote:

<quoted text>
We do have a good idea, the satellite and surface records show 0.15C/decade to 0.2C/decade warming over the past 3 decades so that must be at least fairly close.
On the otherhand the satellite records show more difference than the surface records.
You seem to wrongly think only one of the sentences of the above can be true.

“It is with medium confidence that is likely that without other factors we are unable to discern that the sea levels will rise. This may or may not happen if the ice pack does or does not melt.”- IPCC
Too Funny!!!!!!!!!

[The Respected Doofinator]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
“It is with medium confidence that is likely that without other factors we are unable to discern that the sea levels will rise. This may or may not happen if the ice pack does or does not melt.”- IPCC
Too Funny!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how much additional money it would take for the IPCC to be able to make this statement with high confidence?

The Respected Doofinator

[The Respected Doofinator]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
“It is with medium confidence that is likely that without other factors we are unable to discern that the sea levels will rise. This may or may not happen if the ice pack does or does not melt.”- IPCC

Based on the IPCC's guidance, I wonder which side of this dilemma Cthulhu and LessHypeMoreDoofuss support: A.) ice pack melts; B.) ice pack does not melt?

The Respected Doofinator

[Dominic Marcello]

"Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society"

The article wasn't peer reviewed. This is an outright lie.