Skip to comments.Australiagate: Now NASA caught in trick over Aussie climate data
Posted on 02/10/2010 7:08:46 PM PST by neverdem
In this article we look at the findings of two independent climate researchers who analyse climatic data used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to show warming of two degrees per century for Australia without explanation. We find that an earlier study by Willis Eschenbach in an article on Whats up with That (WUWT) is wholly substantiated by Kens Kingdomslatest analysis of Ken Stewart at his kenskingdom blog. As a consequence, absent any other justification from NASA, we must conclude that the NASA data has been fraudulently cooked.
GISS, based at Columbia University in New York City, has adjusted over a centurys worth of temperature records from the vast Queensland State (the Sunshine State) to reverse a cooling trend in one ground weather station and increase a warming trend in another to skew the overall data set.
Independent analysis by Aussie blogger Ken Stewart exposes a deplorable smoking gun of cynical manipulation of raw temperature data.
The process of adjusting raw data to create a homogenised final global temperature chart is standard practice by climatologists whose work is relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and world governments. This homogenisation process of temperature data has fallen into disrepute since the Climategate scandal where scientists were proven to have unlawfully used a trick to fake climate data and then destroyed their calculations rendering it impossible for independent auditors to examine and justify the methodologies used.
Ken Stewart has his own take on these latest findings from Down Under: Wow- when they adjust, they dont muck around!
GISS combines GHCN data from all urban stations applying the same inexplicable two degree temperature increase as shown below to reveal the shocking disparity between raw data and the cooked GISS data:...
(Excerpt) Read more at climategate.com ...
With the overwhelming evidence of fraud there are still a number of deniers. I run into them on other forums as they don’t beleive the data itself has been “cooked”.
This has to be some kind of mass suicide movement. Like lemmings going over a cliff...
Probably because they aren’t willing to admit they’ve been stupid.
The Man-Made Global Warming Scam will go down as the biggest fraud in the history of science.
The driving force is of course that the Socialists/Marxists/Liberals/Democrats are using it as a vehicle for their march to power.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Menken.
They have certainly elevated the pursuit of corruption in the name of ignorance to a whole new level. Damn them for their destructive actions and influences.
NASA........lametard global warming-ville.
Surprised the Aussie’s have not busted NASA for using US intelligence assets for watching trees grown, ice melt, and the oceans sea rising.......
Ok, NASA and IPCC I get. GISS is “Godard Institute of Space Studies” at Columbia University, NY.
What is “GHCN”? Writers should not rely on hypertext to excuse themselves of the need to write clearly.
Now jest how the h*ll do you expect me to ping you two guys in an untimely manner when you’re the writer and the first responder to the same blinkin’ thread that I’m tryin’ to tell you about!
Lemmings, at least, thought they knew where they were going.
The Global Warming blind followers are following their (s)creed from blind faith alone.
Give you an example of what I'm talking about. Let's say you want to set the stage so that your company can collect on a large dollar value debt owed you by another company. You wish to do this with out bringing in the law ~ just nice and sweet and cheap.
You have several ways to approach this. You could send in your lawyers to talk to their lawyers. Or, you might ask if your "world's greatest experts in whatever" talk to their "experts" and trick it all out to make sure they weren't overpaying you, and vice versa.
So the "experts" meet face to face over the data, and they work it all out. Your company gets a bunch of money. The other guys get a lower price for future events of the same nature. No cops. No lawyers. No great immediate out of pocket expense.
Everybody goes away loving everybody when you can get that kind of solution.
Up until now we've been hitting the NONEXPERTS over the head with evidence that the database is flawed.
The "non-experts" are the politicians and foundation grants administrators who aren't really into this for the sake of the project and findings, but for the sense of "accomplishment" and "comity".
Clearly we need to move forward with this a bit differently. Recall if you will the time when the fellows who found the standard weather stations had not been maintained correctly did a head-on with Doc Hansen and the NASA experts ~ that's just last year. Hansen didn't argue ~ he pulled the data from those stations. It was pretty clear our side knew it's stuff, and Hansen knew they knew. The politicians still haven't caught up to this one, and some of them are in a huff.
Now we have "Climategate". We have some really good technical stuff to beat up on the technical people over there at GW central. First issue is "where's the data" ~ and none of them seem to know. I'd recommend we keep hitting on that one. It leaves the politicians out of the picture.
Another technical issue concerns the climate models ~ the coding doesn't work to predict current reality, or even the distant past. Was there fraud? Or, was someone an incompetent programmer.
I suggest we engage them with the "incompetent programmer" thesis ~ give them a "face saving" lie to let them arrive at the conclusion that fraud was committed (not by them, but on them).
It is necessary to achieve comity with this pack of criminals or they will become intransigent.
Please forward to Al Gore!
There are 3 main surface temperature data-set that form the basis of all the IPCC’s analysis. The NASA data-set (GISTEMP) is maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies under the direction of Dr James Hansen. The second is maintained by NOAA and is called the GHCN, which stands for the “Global Historical Climate Network”. The third is the one maintained by the University of East Anglia Hadley Center called “HADCRUT3”.
While it may appear that these are independent data-sets, they all are composed of observations from the same weather stations. The differences arise from which weather stations they choose to incorporate into the data-set and just how they massage the raw data to come up with their “corrected” databases.
Recently all three have been shown to have use mysterious correction methodologies which seem to cause a bias towards an artificial warming trend. These “corrections” vary from dropping observations from high altitudes and / or higher latitudes, which drops out most of the colder temps. Other “corrections” include corrections for location which appear to have been applied inconsistently. Another “correction” is to just ignore large areas of existing data such as in Siberia!
Bump for reference
With a whole lot of help from useful idiot Republicans from McCain to Gingrich.
Amen. The question is "why"?
My belief is that these Washington Republicans were duped by an unending series of propaganda briefings from a corrupted NASA and other federal agencies.
Precisely. So much data has been monkeyed with how do we know what is true anymore regarding the climate data.
The greatest scam in history.
I wish I could believe that, but I can't. These boys are not dumb and anyone with an ounce of brains could see through this hoax a long time ago. They were all well aware of the tens of thousands of scientists on record as skeptics of this drivel. No, these "leaders" just want to hold on to power and don't want to miss the train and be left at the station. <
Probably because they are still trying to grab off total societal control and some trillions of dollars(2009 value) of resources. They will hang on to absurdity so long as it is possible to make money from it and so long as governments are trying to pass Cap&Trade and other scams like that there is value in hanging on to the most blatant and obvious of lies. And our government is frantically trying.
Now NASA and GISS are shown to have faked upward two degrees worth of Australia data to reverse cooling into recent global warming.
They will be intransigent so long as there is a chance they can get what they want from government, control of all the money and everyone's behaviour.
Global Historical Climatology Network
Actually the question is not between fraud and incompetent programming, but whether between scientific fraud and scientific naïveté. Climate modelers should (and some do) understand that because they are dealing with a non-linear dynamical system, long-term prediction is impossible (the popularizing term for the phenomenon is 'chaotic dynamics') and that the coarser the discretization used in the simulation the worse even short-term predictions will be.
It's not a matter of competent or incompetent programming, but of programs, no matter the correctness of the code or the sophistication of the methods used, being unable to predict over the long term.
The "weather isn't climate" refrain suggests that deep down, there is a degree of scientific naïveté underlying the whole thing: they seem to assume that the short-term variability of weather is statistical noise, when, in fact, it is the short-term dynamics of the system they are modeling. If you have a non-linear dynamical system (weather) and make another by taking averages of the variable over fixed-length time intervals (climate) the new dynamical system is still non-linear, still exhibits chaotic dynamics, and is still not feasible to predict long-term.
I have a colleague, who, for a while, was taken in, until he went to a conference on the subject and saw how really bad the mathematical models being used are. Bad models usually are the result neither of fraud nor of outright stupidity, but of not understanding something fundamental about the nature of mathematical models or about the system being modeled.
This is why I've thought the whole thing was a crock from long before the fact that they 'modelers' have been engaging in fraud came to light.
Darwin in the west and this Mackay Sugar Mill Station in the east.
Very SMALL techniques used....lower the old temperatures,...raise the recent temperatures....
It’s about the Carbon Trade....read up on Former Senator Tim Wirth...who is now president of the UN Foundation.
From the UK’s Telegraph, which states that Al Gore will soon be the world’s first carbon credit billionaire fronm crooked government money:
Last year Mr Gore’s venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts.
The move means that venture capital company Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
Some of the threads back several weeks ago had links to the technical papers.
That is alos in the Skeptics Hand Book ...that is at the JoNova Website.
Addendum to post #35.
NEW IN THIS VERSION: Carbon economics and data fiddling kick in soon after the IPCC is established in 1988.
Civilization is the problem. Hansen recommends a book that incites violent sabotage, and promotes illegal activities to bring about an end to industrial civilization. Is this kind of book legal in the US?
James Hansen has called for industrial sabotage and defended lawbreakers before, but did he really read all of Keith Farnishs words before he endorsed the book Times Up?
Farnish has put together a frightening compilation. He tried non-violent protest with Greenpeace for five years, but then he changed tactics. He got angry, and recommends you do too:
Constructive Anger, on the other hand, does achieve something useful even if it may not be exactly what was originally intended. For instance, if all the evidence you have to hand suggests that removing a sea wall or a dam will have a net beneficial effect on the natural environment then, however you go about it explosives, technical sabotage or manual destruction the removal would be a constructive action. If this action was fuelled by anger then your use of explosives involved Constructive Anger.
The four key rules of sabotage
1. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, Is it worth it?
2. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
3. Even if you understand the worth of your action, dont get caught.
4. Make the Tools of Disconnection your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook.
The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
Hansen was the first scientist that Sen Tim Wirth pulled into the original Hearings I think!
I wonder if Sen Inhofe knows that he endorsed that book?
It is so easy to be duped when you will believe ANYTHING that fits your agenda...
Thanks for the ping!
Does Australia get their temperature data from GISS?
Regional Temperature Trends (Australia)
(Answer to the question: Annual Mean Temperature Anomalies
So my next question is, obviously: does every governmental climate and weather organization and countries around the world fake the data the same way? (Oh yes, I forgot about the Global Climate Data Fakery Conspiracy.)