APP - Climate data so bad MET office says redo it

The Met Office document stresses that the new assessment would be fully independent and be based on data that was freely available to the public and could therefore be examined by climate sceptics.
Click to expand...
Good.
 
Damocles said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because it's insulting to me. You are a denier (like "holocaust denier"), not a skeptic. A skeptic approaches issues rationally and ways the evidence from both sides. A denier, like you, would deny the Earth spun if it fit your political ideology well enough.

And it doesn't matter how the report turns out. If it turns out pro-climate change (which it will), you will dismiss it and collect your check from the oil and gas industries. If it finds any flaws what so ever, you will declare that this means that all data ever collect on global warming is insignfigant and therefore there's no climate change.

This is classic denialism. You people think just like religious fundamentalists.
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
Because it's insulting to me. You are a denier (like "holocaust denier"), not a skeptic. A skeptic approaches issues rationally and ways the evidence from both sides. A denier, like you, would deny the Earth spun if it fit your political ideology well enough.

And it doesn't matter how the report turns out. If it turns out pro-climate change (which it will), you will dismiss it and collect your check from the oil and gas industries. If it finds any flaws what so ever, you will declare that this means that all data ever collect on global warming is insignfigant and therefore there's no climate change.

This is classic denialism. You people think just like religious fundamentalists.
Click to expand...
I am a skeptic. I prefer to be able to review the information and come up with a decision. I don't like it when the information isn't available for review (specifically the redacted information changed by a computer program without any access as to methodology).

I don't deny that it might be, only that the "fix" wouldn't fix anything and killing our economy isn't a viable solution and leaves us less capable of fixing things when it becomes necessary. And I certainly don't trust the people who kept shoving it down our throats as being unquestioned.

The article is the solution, I applaud what they are doing. Give us the information, this is a good thing.

The very idea that they are making the information reviewable is a major bonus and directly contradicts your assertions that it was freely reviewable previously. It wasn't.
 
This is like the ten billionth time some wingnut has posted a link from a rightwing blog, or a rightwing British tabloid, whereas I went to the actual source reported in the article and found out that what the blog-reading teabaggers claims was said, was actually pretty much the opposite of what really went down.

So, in summary, Tinfoil reads a British rightwing tabloid on this and hastily concludes:

TINFOIL: Climate data SO bad Met says REDO it! The Met Office ADMIT they LIED! LOLZ! The global liberal scientific conspiracy is crumbling before my eyes! LOLZ!!!!!
Click to expand...


But, when you go to the actual Met Office report, that is linked in tinny’s own article, it pretty much states the exact opposite of what Mr. Wingnut tried to imply…..

The Met stands by the data. The earth through the 20th century has been trending warmer.

The reason they are doing the data review is to achieve higher resolution datasets, so that higher resolution trends can be analyzed.

In short, the article Tin Wingnut was easily duped by, is a complete teabagging mischaracterization and completely misleading about the Met Office.

Truly pathetic to watch a teabagger, so easily manipulated. Tin Wingnut duped again by a rightwing british tabloid. Just as easily as tinfoil was duped into supporting the Iraq fiasco.

Carry on.


Met Office, from Tin Wingnut’s Own Link:

Surface temperature datasets are of critical importance for detecting, monitoring and communicating climate change. They are also essential for testing the validity of the climate models that are used to produce predictions of future climate change. The current datasets, constructed in the UK and US using different methodologies, agree in showing that the world is warming. Taken together these records provide a robust indicator of global change and form part of the evidence base that led the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to conclude that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”…

…..we have been considering how the datasets can be brought up to modern standards and made fit for the purpose of addressing 21st Century needs. We feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for weather and climate.

The proposed activity would provide:
1. Verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data at both monthly
and finer temporal resolutions (daily and perhaps even sub-daily);
2. Methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;
3. A set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent
groups using independent methods;
4. Robust benchmarking of performance and comprehensive audit trails to deliver
confidence in the results;
5. Robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and
geographical in homogeneities.

It is important to emphasize that we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale multi-decadal trends. This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.


Background
In many respects HadCRUT has been the default choice of surface dataset in all 4 IPCC
Assessment Reports. However we must stress that other independent datasets are used which support the HadCRUT data. There are three centres which currently calculate global average temperature each month:

• Met Office, in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia (UK);
• Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is part of NASA (USA);
• National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (USA).

These groups work independently and use different methods in the way they process data to
calculate the global average temperature.

Despite this, the results of each are similar from month to month and year to year, and there is robust agreement on temperature trends from decade to decade.

All existing surface temperature datasets are homogenized at the monthly resolution, and are therefore suitable for characterizing multi-decadal trends. These are adequate for answering the pressing 20th Century questions of whether climate is changing and if so how. But they are fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st Century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken. Monthly resolution data cannot verify model projections of extremes in temperature which by definition are (sub-) daily resolution events.

ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/SESSIONS/CCl-XV/English/DOCs/pdf/inf15_en.pdf
Click to expand...
 
the very fact that they have to do ANYTHING with the data is PROOF it was fucked up!!!

Cypress makes me laugh. what a dolt.

It's fricken hilarious how this pea-brain thinks I'm ignorant when I've spanked his ass every thread.

link your sceince, Crypiss!!

One fricken study that proves human CO2 is causing catostrophic global warming.

Just one link!

I've linked the recent studies that show water vapor was not included and misattributed to human caused CO2

link your science, mr. warmer!!

Just once! link some science, mr. warmer
 
tinfoil said:
the very fact that they have to do ANYTHING with the data is PROOF it was fucked up!!!

LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


You probably wouldn't know this from laying carpets, or whatever it is you do.

But data sets are culled, tossed out, and refined all the time in science.


But you were easily manipulated and duped by smarter machiavellian conservatives into supporting the Iraq Fiasco. So, I'm not surprised at how easily manipulated you are, yet again.
 
Cypress said:
You probably wouldn't know this from laying carpets, or whatever it is you do.

But data sets are culled, tossed out, and refined all the time in science.


But you were easily manipulated and duped by smarter machiavellian conservatives into supporting the Iraq Fiasco. So, I'm not surprised at how easily manipulated you are, yet again.
Click to expand...

Hey cypress, do you have any links, partner? I doubt you can scrounge up even one single study that shows the human CO2 forcing causes catostrophic warming.


and I love you knocking me. Do it all you want. you'rte nothing but a social working pencil pushing desk jockey. I wouldn't be suprised if you couldn't hammer a nail into a board.

I'm a highly skilled artisan.
I make double what you make for sure. You have no idea what contractors make. I bet you're salaried and have multiple bosses. LOL I answer to no one! I'm my own fucking boss, so laugh all you want bean counter.

As for the dataset at CRU, if you had followed the news instead of watcthing gay porn all day long, you'd know that the CRU data is in question by the Russians for selective omission of warm trending sites.

Do yoy honestly believe the MET will reveal this? LOL
IDIOT
 
no links. Just as I figured. You're all talk Crypiss. Just a big mouth. Your boyfriend must love it. That, and that you like playing catcher
 
Cypress said:
This is like the ten billionth time some wingnut has posted a link from a rightwing blog, or a rightwing British tabloid, whereas I went to the actual source reported in the article and found out that what the blog-reading teabaggers claims was said, was actually pretty much the opposite of what really went down.

So, in summary, Tinfoil reads a British rightwing tabloid on this and hastily concludes:

TINFOIL: Climate data SO bad Met says REDO it! The Met Office ADMIT they LIED! LOLZ! The global liberal scientific conspiracy is crumbling before my eyes! LOLZ!!!!!
Click to expand...


But, when you go to the actual Met Office report, that is linked in tinny’s own article, it pretty much states the exact opposite of what Mr. Wingnut tried to imply…..

The Met stands by the data. The earth through the 20th century has been trending warmer.

The reason they are doing the data review is to achieve higher resolution datasets, so that higher resolution trends can be analyzed.

In short, the article Tin Wingnut was easily duped by, is a complete teabagging mischaracterization and completely misleading about the Met Office.

Truly pathetic to watch a teabagger, so easily manipulated. Tin Wingnut duped again by a rightwing british tabloid. Just as easily as tinfoil was duped into supporting the Iraq fiasco.

Carry on.

Met Office, from Tin Wingnut’s Own Link:

Surface temperature datasets are of critical importance for detecting, monitoring and communicating climate change. They are also essential for testing the validity of the climate models that are used to produce predictions of future climate change. The current datasets, constructed in the UK and US using different methodologies, agree in showing that the world is warming. Taken together these records provide a robust indicator of global change and form part of the evidence base that led the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to conclude that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal”…

…..we have been considering how the datasets can be brought up to modern standards and made fit for the purpose of addressing 21st Century needs. We feel that it is timely to propose an international effort to reanalyze surface temperature data in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which has the responsibility for global observing and monitoring systems for weather and climate.

The proposed activity would provide:
1. Verifiable datasets starting from a common databank of unrestricted data at both monthly
and finer temporal resolutions (daily and perhaps even sub-daily);
2. Methods that are fully documented in the peer reviewed literature and open to scrutiny;
3. A set of independent assessments of surface temperature produced by independent
groups using independent methods;
4. Robust benchmarking of performance and comprehensive audit trails to deliver
confidence in the results;
5. Robust assessment of uncertainties associated with observational error, temporal and
geographical in homogeneities.

It is important to emphasize that we do not anticipate any substantial changes in the resulting global and continental-scale multi-decadal trends. This effort will ensure that the datasets are completely robust and that all methods are transparent.


Background
In many respects HadCRUT has been the default choice of surface dataset in all 4 IPCC
Assessment Reports. However we must stress that other independent datasets are used which support the HadCRUT data. There are three centres which currently calculate global average temperature each month:

• Met Office, in collaboration with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of
East Anglia (UK);
• Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is part of NASA (USA);
• National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is part of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (USA).

These groups work independently and use different methods in the way they process data to
calculate the global average temperature.

Despite this, the results of each are similar from month to month and year to year, and there is robust agreement on temperature trends from decade to decade.

All existing surface temperature datasets are homogenized at the monthly resolution, and are therefore suitable for characterizing multi-decadal trends. These are adequate for answering the pressing 20th Century questions of whether climate is changing and if so how. But they are fundamentally ill-conditioned to answer 21st Century questions such as how extremes are changing and therefore what adaptation and mitigation decisions should be taken. Monthly resolution data cannot verify model projections of extremes in temperature which by definition are (sub-) daily resolution events.

ftp://ftp.wmo.int/Documents/SESSIONS...f/inf15_en.pdf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

What do you expect from someone who calls himself the local crank and wears a tinfoil hat...logic? Rationality? Hardly.

Denial is the watchword of global warming deniers. Dodges, lies, distortions, supposition and conjecture are their main stays.

Kudos to you for logically and factually putting the kibosh on this stooges' latest BS attempt....but it's only for the rational and objective to appreciate.
 
Taichiliberal said:
What do you expect from someone who calls himself the local crank and wears a tinfoil hat...logic? Rationality? Hardly.

Denial is the watchword of global warming deniers. Dodges, lies, distortions, supposition and conjecture are their main stays.

Kudos to you for logically and factually putting the kibosh on this stooges' latest BS attempt....but it's only for the rational and objective to appreciate.
Click to expand...

Nobody credible is denying that there has been global warming, what is very much in contention is the extent and the cause.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
What do you expect from someone who calls himself the local crank and wears a tinfoil hat...logic? Rationality? Hardly.

Denial is the watchword of global warming deniers. Dodges, lies, distortions, supposition and conjecture are their main stays.

Kudos to you for logically and factually putting the kibosh on this stooges' latest BS attempt....but it's only for the rational and objective to appreciate.
Click to expand...


tom prendergast said:
Nobody credible is denying that there has been global warming, what is very much in contention is the extent and the cause.
Click to expand...

True enough.....what drives me crazy is how folks on both sides of the argument seem to either minimalize or outright dismiss the exponential increase in deforestation and industrial pollution as a major contributor.
 
Taichiliberal said:
True enough.....what drives me crazy is how folks on both sides of the argument seem to either minimalize or outright dismiss the exponential increase in deforestation and industrial pollution as a major contributor.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right about pollution. Here is a picture of the Asian Brown Cloud taken by NASA.

Giant_Brown_Cloud_Storm_over_Asia_%28NASA%29.jpg
 
"Yes. Earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change... Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html


"We challenged two leading British scientists to try to prove the science of global warming to a group of people whose views very loosely reflect national opinions.

And, as if that wasn't tough enough we asked them to do it in my kitchen.

Can they do it? Well, you can see for yourself."

BBC - Ethical Man blog: In praise of scepticism

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Excllent piece 400,000 year view global warming

http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
 
tom prendergast said:
Yes you are right about pollution. Here is a picture of the Asian Brown Cloud taken by NASA.

Giant_Brown_Cloud_Storm_over_Asia_%28NASA%29.jpg
Click to expand...

Funny,
how this cloud is portrayed depends on the agenda of the portray-er....

Another view....

Asian Dust' (also yellow dust, yellow sand, yellow wind or China dust storms) is a seasonal meteorological phenomenon which affects much of East Asia sporadically during the springtime months. The dust originates in the deserts of Mongolia, northern China and Kazakhstan where high-speed surface winds and intense dust storms kick up dense clouds of fine, dry soil particles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top