Jump to content






Photo

U S G S... Garbage In Garbage Out


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 26 June 2016 - 01:00 PM

More data malfeasance from government agencies. Or, why we must be vigilant on AGW data.

 

The report of inquiry concluded that the laboratory had a “chronic pattern of scientific

misconduct” and that “data produced by the Inorganic Section were intentionally

manipulated by the line-chemist in charge.” The identified issues predominantly

affected coal and water quality research and related assessments.

 

Full IG report here:  (only 19 pages) https://www.doioig.g...AU010Public.pdf

 

 

 

USGS accused the chemist of data manipulation by intentionally changing the results produced by the mass spectrometer. The chemist also failed to preserve the data. Further, the Bureau accused the chemist of failing to operate the mass spectrometer according to established practices, which constituted scientific misconduct.

 

But that could never happen with AGW research right? Oh wait...it already has...

 

In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space.  The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis.  CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

 

And

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8°C in 1881 to 12.9°C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3°C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9°C by 1920, rose to 13.9°C by 1930, fell to 13° by 1975 before rising to 14°C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2°C.

But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:

• Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
• Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
• Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
• Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
• Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
• With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.

 

 

Be ever vigilant my friends...

 

 


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#2 GrumpyOldGuy

GrumpyOldGuy

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2016 - 11:27 PM

At this point, the data is almost irrelevant.  Bickering over it's validity or some number juggling is wasted time.  
 
Empirical evidence appears almost daily that shows global warming is underway in earnest.  Scientists and researchers far removed from meteorology and climatology are reporting anomalies in their particular studies that can be attributed to heating of the planet.  Examples:
 
-  Tidal flooding occurs along the eastern seaboard of the USA two to three times a month.
 
-  35% of the Great Barrier Reef is dead or dying caused by increased ocean temperatures.
 
-  Glaciers are receding and disappearing all over the world.
 
-  The ratio of high temperature records vs low temperature records in 2015 was approx 3:1.
 
-  The Northwest Passage has been open and ice free every summer since 2008.
 
-  Animal migration routes are changing all over the world.
 
-  Many others too numerous to mention.
 
So, arguing about climate change data is a little like people who are trapped in a burning building and arguing about how many gallons of gasoline were used to start the fire.  It's not important.



#3 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:30 AM

Data is ALL that is important.  I can give alternatives for all your anecdotal "evidence" .  DATA rules all.  Real data that is, not fabricated or , ahem, "adjusted" data


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#4 GrumpyOldGuy

GrumpyOldGuy

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:47 AM

Let's just pick one type of event.

 

Here is some "anecdotal" evidence of tidal flooding.  Yes, things like this have happened before, but always connected to a hurricane or tropical storm.  This occurred 30 times in Miami last year (once every 12 days on average) and not associated with any weather event.   

 

Tidal%20Flood_zpsni4aoppk.png

 

What "alternative" explanation can you offer for this?  Was this image "fabricated"?



#5 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 27 June 2016 - 09:30 AM

Almost worked for them back in the 1980's...   Got the job, then Reagan put a hold on any new hiring...  My perfect timing as always.   Very cool place down there in Menlo Park though....    Chris


1A - 2A = -1A


#6 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 08:44 PM

Your "the data is almost irrelevant" post is the second most ridiculous you have posted yet. EVERYTHING hinges on the data. The data from NOAA (IF it is accurate) says that over 100 years, the seas have risen 9 inches. Big freaking deal. Your position is that over the last 30 years, that 3 inch rise has resulted in insane amounts of flooding. 3 inches is nothing!. By the way, were you aware that they don't use actual tide numbers? They inflate the number to adjust for "crust deformation and rebound". Yep, even though the land may be rising to offset any ocean rise, they subtract the "theoretical and guestimated" land rise to get a higher sea rise. Actual measurements be damned!

 

The fact that Florida is barely above sea level and 2.4 million people live within 4 feet of high tide line is the problem. They have built their homes in areas prone to flooding, AND their topography does not provide run off for strong storm rainfall. Not all flooding is ocean related!. So, in  a sense, it is manmade, but not by any climate measure. Also, the flooding during "king tides" is not unusual nor is it caused by man. It is caused by astronomical effects.

 

King tides are a normal occurrence once or twice every year in coastal areas. (EPA.gov)

 

Again, you are using anecdotal evidence to make a broad claim, and you dismiss all othew possibilities and say the data doesn't matter.  How very scientific. Saying the argument is over or that the data doesn't matter are the last gasps of an indefensible ideology that cannot stand on MERIT.  The data doesn't matter...you crack me up.

 

As for my original post, it's not surprising to me that you missed the point completely. The USGS is fabricating data, the EPA is fabricating data and/or excluding data, NOAA, has repeatedly "adjusted" data, CRU has destroyed data, the IRS, ATF , State Dept and Dept of Justice have flat our lied to us.  And you can't connect the dots... sad.

 

There are only a few groups that account for 90% of the data used by most scientists to study global climate. Hadley Center, East Anglica Climate Research Unit (HadCRUT), Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS),  NOAA (USHCN), Univ Alabama Huntsville (UAH) and satellite (RSS). ALL of these groups substantially adjust the raw data. In the case of CRU, they destroyed an incredible amount of historical data because "they were running out of storage space." I guess they never heard of flash drives.... If you ever bother to look at the unadjusted data compared to the adjusted data, you will be in for a big surprise. The raw data does not support the claim of catastrophic global warming...at all. Not even close. If the root data is corrupted, all the following studies using that data will be corrupted as well.

 

The data does matter. Well, only if you are seeking the truth.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#7 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 09:15 PM

Just read the Michael Mann is saying we don't need the data anymore... Well, we never did need his heavily redacted and massed data, but that is beside the point.

 

Hmmm, is this the newest tactic by every more desperate evangelical warmists?  Sure sounds similar to GoG... Look for that to be the newest load of crap pushed by those whose modeled data has no bearing to actual reality.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#8 GrumpyOldGuy

GrumpyOldGuy

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 June 2016 - 10:33 PM

Joe - 

 

"Saying the argument is over or that the data doesn't matter are the last gasps of an indefensible ideology that cannot stand on MERIT."  

 

That's because it stands on REALITY, which makes it no longer an ideology but a fact.  To wit:  This occurred in Charleston, SC eleven times in 2015...

 

Tidal%20Flood%20Charleston%20SC_zpsolvoq

 

"In view of tangible phenomena, data to the contrary becomes nearly irrelevant."  Nikola Tesla

 

If you lived in this house, you could show your "data" to all that salt water in the front yard.  Maybe it will go away.  

 

Joe - data is extremely valuable, but there are situations where it simply doesn't matter.



#9 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 12:28 PM

Photos of flooding mean nothing. There is no context. Was there heavy rain? Was there pumping station failure like we had in Elk Grove? Was it a poorly planned rainwater/sewage system that can no longer handle the capacity of an ever-growing sprawl? Was it massive development in flood prone areas?  Or was it the 3 inches of seal level rise since we became so concerned with AGW?

 

When Natomas floods (and it will) will we blame it on global warming? Or irresponsible development? The oceans have been rising since the last ice age, and will continue to do so until the next ice age. Just because we are stupid enough to build our cities on castles made of sand doesn't mean AGW OR natural warming is to blame. When a cliffside house falls into the sea, do we look up and down the coast at all the erosion and blame man for that as well?  Or the forest fires, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes that have been going on for millenia. Do we blame those on CO2 as well? I know some would like to, but the DATA says otherwise.

 

You are welcome to think data doesn't matter, but I prefer to base opinion off of holistic data rather than localized anecdote.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#10 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:00 PM

GOG, you are out of ammunition, the facts, sorry for you, nothing there...............   To go on about this recent local flooding just makes you look silly.   Really silly...........  Chicken Little silly...........    But please, double down on your "AGW facts" and tell us all what to do, how to live our lives.........    So cool you see the tree but not the forest, and over time.....!   You are stuck in the "now" and not the real data from the past...........    So sad.  But carry on.  I am so amused.  Please keep digging your deep hole.    Chris


1A - 2A = -1A


#11 GrumpyOldGuy

GrumpyOldGuy

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 July 2016 - 07:04 AM

Chris - why do you always turn to the ad hominem remarks?  The conversation is about tidal flooding, not how stupid you think I am.

Joe - There are 72 communities along the US eastern seaboard and gulf coast that are dealing with tidal flooding. This flooding has become more pervasive just over the past decade or so. It's moving from a "nuisance" problem to a "disruptive" problem. And very soon it will become an "economic" problem of substantial proportions, and no one will care about the data.

Again, the difference is the rate at which the problem is growing. It's unprecedented. Yeah, I know...you may not comprehend the concept of "rate".

Sorry, but when data and empirical evidence conflict, I will choose the empirical almost every time. So did that idiot Tesla.



#12 The Average Joe

The Average Joe

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,155 posts

Posted 01 July 2016 - 10:13 AM

Yawn. I know what a rate is. The rate is fine. There will be no more than a 1 foot rise in the next 100 years. 

And there is no "unprecedented."  Whenever I hear that word, I have a 95% confidence factor that someone is talking out their behind. That is what the DATA tell us. From NOAA no less.

 

Honolulu:

clip_image0104.jpg

 

New York:

 

clip_image00210.jpg

 

Southern CA:

 

clip_image0172.jpg

 

And finally, some perspective:

 

clip_image0066.jpg

 

Rate of change accelerating? Nope Pretty consistent. Unprecedented? Nope. Try again chicken little.


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive" -- C.S. Lewis

 

If the only way to combat "global warming" was to lower taxes, we would never hear of the issue again. - Anonymous

 

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one" — Thomas Paine, 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 (1776)

 


#13 Chris

Chris

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,857 posts
  • Location:Folsom CA

Posted 01 July 2016 - 04:09 PM

Chris - why do you always turn to the ad hominem remarks?  The conversation is about tidal flooding, not how stupid you think I am.

Joe - There are 72 communities along the US eastern seaboard and gulf coast that are dealing with tidal flooding. This flooding has become more pervasive just over the past decade or so. It's moving from a "nuisance" problem to a "disruptive" problem. And very soon it will become an "economic" problem of substantial proportions, and no one will care about the data.

Again, the difference is the rate at which the problem is growing. It's unprecedented. Yeah, I know...you may not comprehend the concept of "rate".

Sorry, but when data and empirical evidence conflict, I will choose the empirical almost every time. So did that idiot Tesla.

Local tidal flooding.....?   And you tie it into the AGW theory every time......?    Still not seeing the forest through the trees are you now.......   I don't think you are stupid, you are just not wise yet.......  You should be but your self denied left wing political leanings cloud your true, real vision.   For your many years on this planet you should be able to see this very clear picture..............    Local tidal flooding....?    Read the history of Venice.......    Or the Hot Gates....   Miles from the ocean now these several thousand years........    Much to do about nothing............     Get back to me when you are done reading real history.   Chris


1A - 2A = -1A


#14 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 01 July 2016 - 06:26 PM

There are plenty of people who are *smart*.

But sadly many of them don't possess *wisdom*. They are slaves to their cult.

GrumpyOld fits that description.

The fact that you guys continue to argue with him is strange. But I assume you guys think it's worthwhile. Oh well.

Happy 4th everyone.🍺

#15 GrumpyOldGuy

GrumpyOldGuy

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 544 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 July 2016 - 12:06 AM

Joe,  just for fun, and you seem to like data so much, I did a quickie evaluation of some Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) data.  The data is from two Australian researchers (Church/White) so you won't think it's tainted by American political distortions.   What you posted are tiny slivers of sea level data from NOAA which (unfortunately) use linear regression (always straight lines) to show trends.  the straight lines are visually misleading.  Church/White data can be found here:

 

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_decades.html 

 

The Church/White data is from 1880 to 2015.  By coincidence, their data starts at the same time the Industrial Revolution started.  Their data is not a straight line and shows the rate of sea level rise is accelerating:  

 

GMSL%20TREND%20CHURCH%20WHITE%201_zpsyui

 

I curve fitted the data with a 3rd order polynomial that shows a correlation factor of 0.9843 which is pretty good.  Next, I extrapolated the trend line out 100 years and it shows that GMSL rise will be about 500mm, or 19.85", more than double your 9" prediction:

 

GMSL%20TREND%20CHURCH%20WHITE%202_zpsxak

 

And note the GMSL rise is increasing even faster.  The reason I say "unprecedented" is there is no historic record showing GMSL rise that was this rapid.  

 

If you extrapolate 500 years, the rise is over 35 feet (average of 0.84" per year).  The data you posted shows the post glacial GMSL rise averaged 0.23 inches per year.  Are we going to  "unprecedented" territory?   Yep...   

 

My point has always been that this problem is going to create a huge economic burden on humans everywhere.  Efforts should be made to minimize it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users