Are Temperature Station Data Subject to Change From Computer Models?

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441
    one poster said this-
    I will ignore computer programs that collect and store the raw data. what happens to the raw data? I especially want the pro-CAGW crowd here to actually think about this.

    is there a difference between data collected 15 years ago and 150 years ago? yes, of course, older data was collected with different equipment and fewer times a day. can that be corrected for? yes, to a certain extent. typically by computer models that estimate the deviation for such things as time of observation bias, etc. there are also computer models that supposedly correct for undocumented station location changes, etc. I could go on but I dont want to get bogged down here.

    How are averages calculated for states, countries and the globe? grids are defined and representative sites are included via, you guessed it, climate models. when there are few or no stations in a grid how do they determine the values? I bet you are catching on by now.


    what I really want to ask the pro-AGWers and climate science apologists is; do you think that the temperature values of existing readings have gone up, down or remained the same in the last 15 years? the last 5 years? in the last year?

    is anyone brave enough to answer that question?
     
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,878
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,515
    Doubtful that they will answer because they know that if they claim that existing temperature records remain unchanged you will be able to produce a plethora of examples of data being both reduced and warmed depending on the time frame in order to give a predetermined appearance to the present.
     
  3. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441


    you are correct. they have never answered before. perhaps I should have addressed this to the people who arent sure about the whole global warming thingie but refuse to believe that scientists would 'exaggerate' or 'massage' the data to get preconceived results.
     
  4. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    7,878
    Thanks Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,515
    It used to be easy to believe that "scientists" wouldn't do certain things but history has shown us that people will do all sorts of things if money and fame are the reward for compromizing ones principles.
     
  5. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179
    rhetorical question my friend...........its part of the hoax.
     
  6. skookerasbil
    Offline

    skookerasbil Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    24,149
    Thanks Received:
    2,910
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Not the middle of nowhere
    Ratings:
    +6,179

    Ive always found it fascinating that the warmist contingent is convinced that peer reviewed scientists live in a bubble of integrity......that fraud cant exist......as if all of their intentions are noble. Those who invest in green technology are laughing all the way to the bank due to a spectacular level of naive. Al Gore? The guy is fucking brilliant if nothing else........I give the guy all the credit in the world. Who cares that he is a hypocrite.......he's another one who's laughing all the way to the bank.:2up:
     
  7. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    Temperature sensors are affected by where they are. A sensor in a park is going to have a different temperature than one in the middle of a concrete jungle city. Some of these sensors have been in place for years. They were in open areas, now they are in parking lots, on buildings where they not only record ambient temperature but reflected heat as well.
     
  8. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,159
    Thanks Received:
    14,900
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,890
    All we know for certain is that CO2 is melting the ice caps. Everything else is subject to revision
     
  9. IanC
    Online

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,191
    Thanks Received:
    1,070
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,441

    to be blunt, my question is....if a station had an average temperature of xx.x in 1950, would it still have a temperature of xx.x for 1950 in 2000? in 2007? would a station have the same temperatures in its history in 2010 as it does in 2012? if there is a change, how big of a difference is reasonable? 0.01, 0.10, 1.00? what if it is bigger than 1.0 degree (celcius or fareinheit, I dont care)?
     
  10. Katzndogz
    Offline

    Katzndogz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2011
    Messages:
    65,659
    Thanks Received:
    7,418
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Ratings:
    +8,337
    If only it was actually melting the ice caps. The ice caps melt every year. In the Antarctic, it's completely ice free every year, but we will certainly get the nutters out there saying its global warming.

    Along about May, we'll hear even more about global warming. The temperature is rising, it's global warming. Flowers will sprout from thawed ground. Global warming. Then, in October or so, climate change will cause sudden, inexplicable freezes. It might even snow. But if you park your car in the garage and never drive it again, the snow will stop falling and flowers will stop blooming and we will have a mandated 72 degrees all year around with never a cloudy day.

    Liberals took these lyrics too seriously and think they can really do it by decree.

    It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
    The climate must be perfect all the year.

    A law was made a distant moon ago here:
    July and August cannot be too hot.
    And there's a legal limit to the snow here
    In Camelot.
    The winter is forbidden till December
    And exits March the second on the dot.
    By order, summer lingers through September
    In Camelot.
    Camelot! Camelot!
    I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
    But in Camelot, Camelot
    That's how conditions are.
    The rain may never fall till after sundown.
    By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
    In short, there's simply not
    A more congenial spot
    For happily-ever-aftering than here
    In Camelot.

    Camelot! Camelot!
    I know it gives a person pause,
    But in Camelot, Camelot
    Those are the legal laws.

    All they need is for obama to pass those laws.
     

Share This Page