Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
NOAA&NASA: 2014 Warmest Year on Record
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cyptomcat" data-source="post: 127317" data-attributes="member: 323"><p>I’ll start with the first part “data may still support that the US has not been getting warmer while the globe has been”. The measurements in the instrumental age (1880 - now) does not support that. Both the US and globe had a warming trend if you look at the NASA graphics. That’s also what a linear fit would show for that period. Even the dust bowl record temperature has been eclipsed, and the warmest year ever for the US is 2012 in the NASA data set. Graphs are in Link 1.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Something interesting about that Hansen link from 1999. He makes predictions at the end of the article for the 2000s and turns out he was right with his warming predictions. The 2000s were a lot warmer than the 90s, anomaly of .74 vs .52 averaged over the decade.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As already discussed, with better technology and science in addition to discovery and correction of mistakes, we achieve better adjustments to instrumental readings over time. This is not unique to climate science or its technology, it happens everywhere. I don’t see anything fraudulent on this specific issue in the links. It was a software-problem, and it was fixed right away when the symptoms were reported. Akin to other software failures, healthcare website comes to mind… Moving on...</p><p></p><p></p><p>“So, NASA admitted adjusting US data when caught.” So much wrong with that statement. First of all there are PLENTY of adjustments done on the raw data. These adjustments have been published in various papers. They are public, so there is no need to admitting anything. It’s part of how raw readings are corrected for the biases in the readings. An example, stations measure at different times of day, that needs to be corrected. I believe the correction involves readings of satellites for those specific geographical positions. So, the Bloomberg article is not admitting the adjustment, in fact, it’s admitting a software bug/mistake in the adjustments. It was fixed as soon as the symptoms from the mistake were noticed by McIntyre.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now, on Goddard. This is a very unfortunate anti-science reference for you, because Goddard seems to be ignorant of crucial (and publicly available) scientific method that is applied on temperature records. First of all, adjustments to a specific reading change over time, even if the reading was 100 years ago. It’s not a surprise that for a specific geographical point shifts would be observed in Goddard’s animations about specific stations for various reasons. It’s not that the raw data is being changed, but instead the adjustments change over time. See link 2 for more details on this.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The most unfortunate part about Goddard is that he does shoddy science if it can be called that. His spatial averaging is wrong. You can read more on the details at the link 3 below, but also your Curry link has multiple links on “How not to calculate temperatures” that explains the errors. In addition, as your link notes, Watts has also been critical of Goddard’s analysis. It wasn’t the first time that Goddard has done bad analysis as Watts notes elsewhere. Last but not least, Curry acknowledges that Goddard made analysis errors too.</p><p></p><p></p><p>These statements of Goddard’s errors are very important. Why? Because, Goddard has not fixed anything, and here you are citing bad science. Good science is when you fix your analysis for the errors. The first NASA example when the mistake was fixed when discovered. Not Goddard. Unfortunately. So, in summary, the Goddard episode is not a proof of fraud, but proof of Goddard still doing anti-science.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Interestingly, Goddard and Lindzen are two of your major references in this thread. Former is demonstrably anti-science, and Lindzen has also apparently made shoddy analysis before on climate science. I am not as familiar with his work, but Lindzen accepted that one of his major climate science works had “some stupid mistakes” and “it was just embarrassing”. Why am I talking about this? I wouldn’t say Lindzen was fraudulent. Mistakes are fairly common in science and technology. I just don’t like that you are bashing NASA as fraudulent because of their mistakes, yet you cite Lindzen and Goddard. Take it for what’s it’s worth.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the best thing about this recent episode with Goddard is all the blog posts it generated about the approaches used by NASA etc. Also, with the added attention, I think they can possibly find more mistakes or at least improve on some of the reporting mechanisms that seem to be not ideal. It’s part of the process, not fraud.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Link 1: <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/" target="_blank">http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/</a></p><p></p><p>Link 2: <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/" target="_blank">http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/</a></p><p></p><p>Link 3: <a href="https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/laying-the-points-out/" target="_blank">https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/laying-the-points-out/</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cyptomcat, post: 127317, member: 323"] I’ll start with the first part “data may still support that the US has not been getting warmer while the globe has been”. The measurements in the instrumental age (1880 - now) does not support that. Both the US and globe had a warming trend if you look at the NASA graphics. That’s also what a linear fit would show for that period. Even the dust bowl record temperature has been eclipsed, and the warmest year ever for the US is 2012 in the NASA data set. Graphs are in Link 1. Something interesting about that Hansen link from 1999. He makes predictions at the end of the article for the 2000s and turns out he was right with his warming predictions. The 2000s were a lot warmer than the 90s, anomaly of .74 vs .52 averaged over the decade. As already discussed, with better technology and science in addition to discovery and correction of mistakes, we achieve better adjustments to instrumental readings over time. This is not unique to climate science or its technology, it happens everywhere. I don’t see anything fraudulent on this specific issue in the links. It was a software-problem, and it was fixed right away when the symptoms were reported. Akin to other software failures, healthcare website comes to mind… Moving on... “So, NASA admitted adjusting US data when caught.” So much wrong with that statement. First of all there are PLENTY of adjustments done on the raw data. These adjustments have been published in various papers. They are public, so there is no need to admitting anything. It’s part of how raw readings are corrected for the biases in the readings. An example, stations measure at different times of day, that needs to be corrected. I believe the correction involves readings of satellites for those specific geographical positions. So, the Bloomberg article is not admitting the adjustment, in fact, it’s admitting a software bug/mistake in the adjustments. It was fixed as soon as the symptoms from the mistake were noticed by McIntyre. Now, on Goddard. This is a very unfortunate anti-science reference for you, because Goddard seems to be ignorant of crucial (and publicly available) scientific method that is applied on temperature records. First of all, adjustments to a specific reading change over time, even if the reading was 100 years ago. It’s not a surprise that for a specific geographical point shifts would be observed in Goddard’s animations about specific stations for various reasons. It’s not that the raw data is being changed, but instead the adjustments change over time. See link 2 for more details on this. The most unfortunate part about Goddard is that he does shoddy science if it can be called that. His spatial averaging is wrong. You can read more on the details at the link 3 below, but also your Curry link has multiple links on “How not to calculate temperatures” that explains the errors. In addition, as your link notes, Watts has also been critical of Goddard’s analysis. It wasn’t the first time that Goddard has done bad analysis as Watts notes elsewhere. Last but not least, Curry acknowledges that Goddard made analysis errors too. These statements of Goddard’s errors are very important. Why? Because, Goddard has not fixed anything, and here you are citing bad science. Good science is when you fix your analysis for the errors. The first NASA example when the mistake was fixed when discovered. Not Goddard. Unfortunately. So, in summary, the Goddard episode is not a proof of fraud, but proof of Goddard still doing anti-science. Interestingly, Goddard and Lindzen are two of your major references in this thread. Former is demonstrably anti-science, and Lindzen has also apparently made shoddy analysis before on climate science. I am not as familiar with his work, but Lindzen accepted that one of his major climate science works had “some stupid mistakes” and “it was just embarrassing”. Why am I talking about this? I wouldn’t say Lindzen was fraudulent. Mistakes are fairly common in science and technology. I just don’t like that you are bashing NASA as fraudulent because of their mistakes, yet you cite Lindzen and Goddard. Take it for what’s it’s worth. I think the best thing about this recent episode with Goddard is all the blog posts it generated about the approaches used by NASA etc. Also, with the added attention, I think they can possibly find more mistakes or at least improve on some of the reporting mechanisms that seem to be not ideal. It’s part of the process, not fraud. Link 1: [URL]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/[/URL] Link 2: [URL]http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/[/URL] Link 3: [URL]https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/laying-the-points-out/[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The 2014 ACC Football Championship was played in what city?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
NOAA&NASA: 2014 Warmest Year on Record
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top