Are Temperature Station Data Subject to Change From Computer Models?

IanC

Gold Member
Sep 22, 2009
11,061
1,344
245
one poster said this-
Computer model is just a word right-wing, WUWT idiots toss around. There is no computer model involved in collecting weather station data.

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?
 
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.
 
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.



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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.


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:
 
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.
 
All we know for certain is that CO2 is melting the ice caps. Everything else is subject to revision
 
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.


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)?
 
All we know for certain is that CO2 is melting the ice caps. Everything else is subject to revision

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.
 
image_thumb32.png


Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

0.10C since 2008! there was also a significant upward change from 1998 to 2007 when McIntyre's discovery of the Y2K bug caused a shortlived downward adjustment. adjustments on adjustments on adjustments. if 0.10C of the 0.75C total increase has happened just in the last five years by computer manipulation, how much faith do you have that global warming is catastrophic? if global warming is only 0.5C over the last 100 years are you still worried? if the globe only warms another 0.5C over the next 100 years do you think that will be a 'tipping point'?

we need professional auditors to go over the temperature records. climate scientists do not have the required expertise in this area. or, as has been shown, in other areas where sophisticated statistics are needed. climate science does not go outside its small group for advice because they keep getting told they are doing it wrong.
 
You probably won't get much feedback from warmists on the charts....they don't want to think about the ramifications of widespread knowledege of data tampering on the part of their preists.
 
You probably won't get much feedback from warmists on the charts....they don't want to think about the ramifications of widespread knowledege of data tampering on the part of their preists.



I get very little feedback on 'adjustments' from either side of the fence. it is amazing that the very basis of the whole thing is ignored by practically all.
 
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.


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)?

Good question !
Now you have to ask if the method how to measure the temperature was the same in 1950 as it is today:
Measuring Temperature
The maximum (MAX.) and minimum (MIN.) temperatures are the highest and lowest temperatures to have occurred during the past 24 hours. The AT OBSN temperature is the temperature at the time you take your observation. Enter to the nearest whole degree.
The minimum must be at least as low as the lowest of yesterday's and today's AT OBSN temperatures, and the MAX must be at least as high as the highest of today's and yesterday's AT OBSN temperatures.
That will make enough of a difference. There were not as many weather stations in 1950 which used data loggers that could tell you if the max & min T were within a 24 hour time frame.
So it all depends at what time they have been reading the max T`s before this new method was applied.
Almost all of it was done by a "Met-Tech" who had to go and read a thermometer and they did not hang around to see if the temperature climbed any higher after he recorded it.

Excuse me for changing the subject, but I`m pretty certain that you will be interested in this...(works best with Firefox):
earth wind map

It`s an interactive live global wind map and you can rotate the globe at will.

And here is another one for the US:
Wind Map
 
Last edited:
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.


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)?

Good question !
Now you have to ask if the method how to measure the temperature was the same in 1950 as it is today:
Measuring Temperature
The maximum (MAX.) and minimum (MIN.) temperatures are the highest and lowest temperatures to have occurred during the past 24 hours. The AT OBSN temperature is the temperature at the time you take your observation. Enter to the nearest whole degree.
The minimum must be at least as low as the lowest of yesterday's and today's AT OBSN temperatures, and the MAX must be at least as high as the highest of today's and yesterday's AT OBSN temperatures.
That will make enough of a difference. There were not as many weather stations in 1950 which used data loggers that could tell you if the max & min T were within a 24 hour time frame.
So it all depends at what time they have been reading the max T`s before this new method was applied.
Almost all of it was done by a "Met-Tech" who had to go and read a thermometer and they did not hang around to see if the temperature climbed any higher after he recorded it.

Excuse me for changing the subject, but I`m pretty certain that you will be interested in this...(works best with Firefox):
earth wind map

It`s an interactive live global wind map.
And here is another one for the US:
Wind Map

All we can say for certain is that the 1PPM of CO2 that was added to the atmosphere last year caused the Polar Vortex and record cold and is responsible for all the weird weather events, like it being warmer and cooler and stuff because of ManMade Global Warming.

Here, let me show you our Model

AGWCult Computer Model

<insert weather event> is due to manmade Global Warming

Where do I pick up my Nobel Prize?
 

Forum List

Back
Top