Text 21409, 177 rader
Skriven 2015-03-04 16:08:00 av Bill McGarrity (13513.2fidonews)
Ärende: Tim's rants...
======================
* Originally in: Fidonet Whacko Teabagger Politics - Dangerous!
* Originally to: TIM RICHARDSON
* Original subj: Re: DR. SOON
-=> On 03-04-15 11:17, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to JANIS KRACHT <=-
I posted this as a reply to Tim's continuous whining about climate change...
similar to the one he posted here.
As I stated at the bottom, it's EoD for me on this topic. He no longer has
fodder to feed his insanity...
<snip>
> And you and McGarrity making the false claim of `oh that was answered in a
> previous post' only goes to make you both look even sillier.
OK.. here goes Mr. Wonderful....
I am assuming you're getting all your information regarding the "fudged"
numbers from Steve Doocy. OK.. here is an article that takes on Doocy and his
fudging of the #'s.
From:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/
From the article..
Fox News host Steve Doocy gave the doubters some ammunition on June 24, 2014.
In a segment on Fox and Friends called "News by the Numbers," Doocy drew
viewersA attention to the year 1934.
"That's the hottest year on record in the United States," Doocy said. "At least
until NASA scientists fudged the numbers to make 1998 the hottest year to
overstate the extent of global warming. The 1930s were by far the hottest
decade in the United States."
A reader wondered if NASA really did cook the books (we love reader
suggestions!), so we are checking DoocyAs claim about fudging the numbers.
We asked Fox News for their source and while they didnAt respond, a number of
conservative news outlets have made much in recent days of a blog post from a
man who writes under the pseudonym Steven Goddard. Goddard charged that until
2000, NASA reported that in the United States, 1934 was hotter than 1998 and
that the country has been cooling since then.
"Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered U.S. climate
history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer," Goddard
wrote.
(A graph graph goes here you can view on the site)
Climate science experts say not so fast
Doocy exaggerated the findings in this blog post when he applied it to global
warming. The post itself only talks about U.S. land temperatures and what
happens in the United States is separate from global shifts.
As far as what the blog actually claimed, while it accurately copied the
changes in the government charts, experts in U.S. temperature measurement say
it ignores why the charts shifted. There were major changes in how the country
gathered temperature information over the decades.
Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with Berkeley Earth, a research group that
has expressed doubts about some of the reports on climate change coming from
Washington and international bodies. Hausfather took Goddard to task when
Goddard made a similar claim about numbers fudging earlier this month. The
missing piece in GoddardAs analysis, Hausfather said, was he ignored that the
network of weather stations that feed data to the government today is not the
one that existed 80 years ago.
(Please note TIm, Hausfather is a doubter as well)
"He is simply averaging absolute temperatures," Hausfather wrote. "Absolute
temperatures work fine if and only if the composition of the station network
remains unchanged over time."
Weather stations that once were in a valley might now be on a hill top and vice
versa. But the shift could be greater than simple elevation. Stations were
moved from one part of a state to another. The number of stations within a
given area shifted. All these differences, Hausfather and other experts said,
will alter the typical temperatures gathered by government meteorologists.
Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said
the raw data used in the blog post suffered from an equally troubling flaw. The
temperatures were not measured at the same time of day.
"Over time, the U.S. network went from recording max/min temperatures at
different points of the day, to doing it at midnight," Schmidt said.
In fact, volunteers staffed many of the stations. Before 1940, most followed
Weather Service guidelines and recorded the temperature at sundown. Through the
second half of the century, there was a gradual shift to recording morning
temperatures. This change produced the appearance of a cooling trend when none
existed.
Comparing apples to apples...
Better instruments and more consistent methods have allowed scientists to
collect more reliable data. But for climate studies, long-term trends are key
and the challenge has been how to make the best use of the older readings.
In the mid 1980s, the government settled on a list of about 1,200 stations
across the country to track temperature trends. Around 1990, climatologists
began delivering computer programs to factor in the artificial changes that
systematically pushed the readings one way or the other. Over time, they
accounted for the impacts of equipment, location, the time of day of
measurements and urbanization (more asphalt leads to higher surface
temperatures).
There is no question that running the raw data through these programs changes
the graphs of average temperatures. However, multiple researchers from a
variety of institutions have fed into this process and come up with their own
computer models. Results from different teams largely match up.
John Nielsen-Gammon is a researcher at Texas A&M University and is the Texas
state climatologist. Nielsen-Gammon finds nothing nefarious in the government
analysis of temperature trends. (BTW, that's your buddy's favorite
university... Texas A&M can do NO WRONG)
"It is reasonable to expect the adjusted data record to change over time as the
technology for identifying and removing artificial changes improves,"
Nielsen-Gammon said. "If there are any biases, they are caused by the quality
of the underlying data, not by any biases intentionally introduced into the
adjustment process."
All of the experts we reached or whose work we read rejected GoddardAs
conclusions.
Mark C. Serreze, professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder,
said no fabrication has taken place.
"Goddard's results stem from an erroneous analysis of the data," Serreze said.
Anthony Watts, a popular skeptic of most climate change data, posted his
objection to GoddardAs claim.
"I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was
very wrong and needed to do better," Watts wrote. al(This was his original
statement. Since then it seems he now totally agrees with Goddard for some
strange reason)
Politifats ruling..
Doocy with Fox News said NASA scientists fudged the numbers to overstate the
extent of global warming. This exaggerated the thrust in the underlying blog
post. It accused government scientists of altering the U.S. temperature record,
not the record for the entire earth.
As for what the blog said, we found that experts across the spectrum found
fundamental flaws in its analytic methods. By relying on raw data, it ignored
that the number and location of weather stations and the methods of measuring
temperatures across the United States have changed greatly over the past 80
years.
The experts we reached or whose work we read generally agree that the
corrections for flawed data produce valid results. The bare bones approach used
in the blog post provides no solution to the issues of weaknesses in the raw
data.
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
Tim, Goddard's "research" takes on one aspect of climate change. You seem to
only look at things no further than your nose. Maybe becuase you think the
world ends at US borders, I don't know... and in all honesty, I don't care.
You asked for proof, you've now received it. I will no longer be satifying
your need to be "special" any longer.
Enjoy your day...
<snip>
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
* Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)
|