AGW: 40% of Temp Data 'Estimated'. NOAA Fudges Data.

[_bcspace]

For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.

Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.

Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.

But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.

It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions.

But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?

In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.

In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.

Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared. This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.

Why should it do this? Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming.

They draw their conclusions accordingly.

Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and a standstill thereafter.

The US is, after all, only a small proportion of the globe.

Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.

We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.

But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.

As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

[_canpakes]

Incomplete Data from bcapace

Check that.

Antarctic land ice has been decreasing regardless of Antarctic sea ice increasing. The equation is showing a net loss.

Meanwhile, Arctic sea ice area has decreased by 10 times more than Antarctic ice has gained. Check out the graph -

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress ... e%28%29%20?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

You should let actual scientists supply your data instead of sacrificing your reputation to political hacks.

[_Res Ipsa]

BCspace would much rather get his factoids from an accountant/business adviser with a blog than someone who actually knows what the hell he's talking about.

Special prize to anyone who takes the available raw data and shows that how NOAA handles "drop out" stations has any material effect on the global temperature record.

None of what the author mentions is "news" to anyone who has demonstrated the slightest curiosity in how average global temperature is determined or what actual sea ice trends are.

[_Quasimodo]

[_subgenius]

[_Brackite]

[_Brackite]

viewtopic.php?p=678103#p678103

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... bqs_tGc6VQ

[_Gunnar]

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=678103#p678103

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl= ... bqs_tGc6VQ

Incredible! Yet again bcspace cites a highly discreditable and easily refuted source to support his anti-AGW nonsense. Every time he does this, he only further weakens the very case against the reality of AGW he is trying to promote! How many times can he do this before it finally sinks through to him? Either he is covertly trying to make to make AGW denial look as absurd and ill informed as possible in order to increase awareness and acceptance of its reality, or he is far too stupid and scientifically illiterate to be the rocket scientist he claims to be!

[_bcspace]

Incredible! Yet again bcspace cites a highly discreditable and easily refuted source to support his anti-AGW nonsense.

You're going to attempt to discredit actual data with...a Google search?


Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

[_canpakes]

Incredible! Yet again bcspace cites a highly discreditable and easily refuted source to support his anti-AGW nonsense.

You're going to attempt to discredit actual data with...a Google search?


Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

Oh, no. That's two strikes for you in this thread so far.

Not to point out the terribly obvious, but your link shows data from the continental US only. Are you ditching your anti-'global warming' stand in favor of a more limited geography theory? ; )

There's more... your graph only captures the last 9.5 years. Try a longer time period and you'll see a different result. The link below is to a data source that uses data going back to 1973, through 2012. You'll compare and note that your limited-years graph brackets the data into a typical cycle that favors your political viewpoint. When extended over the longer period of time, the data shows that your political viewpoint falls to the scientific reality - which is a long-term rising temperature trend for this same area (continental US). Even when accounting for the longer graph's stopping point being at a high point, if we include the subsequent 2.5 years since (use your own graph as the source), the long-term trend is still upward.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/ ... y-2012.png

That's three strikes for you, now.