This is interesting…

Apparently some of the Brit science is settled crowd are getting up on their high horses… Again…

We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates over whether or not climate change is real. It is real. We need to act now or the consequences will be catastrophic. In the interests of “balance”, the media often feels the need to include those who outright deny the reality of human-triggered climate change.

Full article, HERE at the Guardian.

For a good basic primer on the whole climate change hoorah, go to Borepatch’s Blog, HERE. He does an excellent job of laying out the basics in understandable language, with graphs!

One thing I do find concerning, is that the RSS data is now apparently being ‘adjusted’ too… Since this is supposedly the ‘raw’ data, that’s a serious issue, as there is apparently a move to ‘make’ the data align more closely with the models. It’s NOT supposed to work that way. Control/raw data is just that. It’s NOT supposed to be ‘pre-adjusted’ to get the numbers one wants…

Sigh…

Comments

This is interesting… — 16 Comments

  1. Yup, ‘adjusted data’ is just a polite way of saying ‘slanted data’.

    Or ‘we’re right – you’re wrong’.

    Just the facts ma’am and only the facts.

  2. Multiple the data you got by the fudge constant to get the data you want.

    I worked for a PhD who did that all the time.

  3. Junk science is useful for governments and those wishing to use the government to line their pockets. When you add scientists willing to corrupt data to keep their grants, it’s a lucrative deal for those involved.

  4. Of course climate change exists, and has since the earth formed. Some folks are just looking for an excuse to ban any technology simply to “save Mother Gaia” and “for the children.” I recall 40 years ago how another ice age was imminent. People were causing that too.

    • I forget whether it was in Jr. or Sr. high school that I was told by one of my teachers that 15K years before, my state was half-glaciated.

  5. As Dr. Jerry Pournelle said in his blog, how can you talk about tenths of a degree changes in temperature when we can’t measure that accurately worldwide today? He had much to say about the fraud of global warming.

  6. Not only are the data “adjusted” (fudged, cherry picked, etc.), the true “raw data” are not available for independent analysis. Also every time the models fail to predict actual conditions, the data gets “adjusted” further.

    There are a nearly infinite numbers of variables that affect the climate, Solar activity, volcanic activity, water vapor (a much stronger green house gas than carbon dioxide), etc. Carbon dioxide is a factor, but a relatively minor factor compared to things we have no control over. To focus solely on carbon dioxide concentration borders on Lysenkoism.

  7. Thanks for the link. Actually, RSS isn’t raw data. The Satellites collect raw data which are then adjusted for time of day over location, relativistic effects (actually a bigger deal than you might think) and some other stuff. This adjustment really needs to happen.

    But what’s new and strange is that suddenly RSS is reporting more warming than any other data set, even the notorious NASA GIS.

    Interestingly, the UAH data set uses exactly the same raw satellite data as RSS but shows the least warming of all the major data sets. RSS used to agree closely with this, which is where the mystery enters.

    Well, actually it’s not much of a mystery.

  8. The climate changes every year. 10,000 years ago where you stand was under an ice sheet. 10,000 years before that it was the sea floor. 10,000 years before that it was a desert. The question is whether NOW, humans are significantly impacting the climate as the world recovers from the last vestiges of the last ice age.

    Unfortunately there are agendas at work and that means that finding the truth is sort of like an X-Files episode.

  9. WHen I was gathering data for my dissertation and subsequent research, I bought data sets from the National Climate Research Center. About six months later, then announced that they were revising the old data sets. A lot of people bought the “unadjusted” sets and cached them. I had to add a proviso to my work that anyone attempting to duplicate my calculations needed to be aware of the revision, and that if asked I would send copies of my data sets. Granted, I was only looking at precipitation, not temperature (what got fudged) but dang. These were data from the 1850s – 1930s.

  10. The Guardian… You might as well trust the DNC for an honest appraisal of news that needs to fit a left-wing narrative and pre-determined conclusions….

  11. All- Thanks for the comments. BP, I know, but I wasn’t going down that rathole. 🙂 TXRed- Yep, ONE of the reasons I got my chief scientist. He’d run the SATALT program, and got fed up with the BS and playing with the ocean level data. Bryn- I know, but they are the ONLY ones I saw reporting it.

    Posted from my iPhone.

  12. We all know it’s horseshit, the issue is the hordes of morons that take whatever they fart out as gospel.

  13. You know, I think we should start taking climate change seriously and draw up plans to murder the population of the Old World and South America.

    At least one plan with death camps and one plan with nukes.

    Talk with these scientists about where the English camps would be cited, and the logistics. Ask them if they are so certain of their results that they are willing to be murdered for it. If yes, torture them until you have all of their data, then kill them. If no, make a record of that, and publicize it.