Posted on 12/04/2009 5:28:26 PM PST by Kaslin
From professors who graduated in the 1960s?
“They seem to be using the same source for bogus data.”
“The NASA satellite data is calibrated from the CRU data.”
Some errors to correct here:
- NASA GISS is not satellite data (strange but true),
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
- the satellite data is UAH (U Alabama Huntsville)
- The satellite data nor GISS is NOT calibrated from CRU data
- There are 4 main datasets - NASA/GISS, Hadley, CRU, UAH
- There are adjustments done within each dataset, not between them
The REAL issue with GISS and CRU is the adjustments for Urban Heat Island or other effects. If they are ‘massaging’ the data wrong, the numbers they report are wrong. This cant be checked unless they make public the raw data, and the adjustments.
Michael Mann is at Penn State.
“1.) Nobody who understands the issue will deny that there is indeed global warming going on. That is undeniable and it is provable.”
Although I would tentatively agree, we have warmed since the 1970s for example, we now have the possibility, based on multiple cases of suspicious massaging of data, that the temperature ‘warming trends’ have been overstated via biases in temperature adjustments.
That is exactly what this FOI request is about - to get to the bottom of what adjustments have been made and why they were made.
In the wake of Climategate, the best we can say is that published temperature trends show warming from 1850 to the present. How much of this is AGW vs natural variability is an open question. For some of us, how much of that trend is real and how much is the product of phony adjustments is ALSO an open question.
Dallas Morning News is just spouting gibberish.
It’s not just CRU, but specific leading scientists, including Michael Mann of Penn State, who have been found trying to fire journal editors who allowed ‘skeptic’ papers to be published, skewed data and conspired to hide information to avoid Freedom of Information requests. The CRU site was where the emails were taken from, but there were emails from others, like Mann and Ben Santer, who said things embarrassing or wrong.
Unless and until the air is cleared and the science rebalanced you cannot trust any of these sources, and these sources were the lead authors on IPCC reports - so you cant trust what the IPCC says.
Frankly, the NASA/GISS is the MOST suspect of the temperature records, they’ve been caught in the past with biases/mistakes (eg year 2000 ‘bug’), so pinning this as a British problem is simply ignorant.
I refer you to Lord Monctons report on this at Pg. 17 about the satellite and surface data sets. Lord Moncton pdf
These are not independent data sets.
I don’t think we disagree. Read my post at #105...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.