Posted on 05/08/2012 3:23:12 AM PDT by Makana
One popular climate record that shows a slower atmospheric warming trend than other studies contains a data calibration problem, and when the problem is corrected the results fall in line with other records and climate models, according to a new University of Washington study.
The finding is important because it helps confirm that models that simulate global warming agree with observations, said Stephen Po-Chedley, a UW graduate student in atmospheric sciences who wrote the paper with Qiang Fu, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
So these two geeks twirled the dials on the satellite to make the data match the agenda?
Actually, that *is* how science works. When the results do not fit the hypothesis, it's time to change the hypothesis and try again. This has nothing to do with "consensus", though.
Mike
They will adjust it until it say’s what they want it to say.
Or we will be laughing off our behinds…
True, but that's not what happened here. These "researchers" changed the DATA to match the hypothesis, not the other way around.
That's quite some time ago but they've never given up trying to get the satellites to measure what they believe the standard weather station (a white box with tubes in it that sits in the Sun next to an air conditioner) was reporting.
Again, that was a long time ago.
NASA did an adjustment to the satellite data and the Ecolibtards shut up for a while.
These grad students were probably about 10 years old or less when that adjustment was made.
Astute observers then noted that after a period of time the satellite data began to show a FLAT trajectory for GLOBAL WARMING. Even with Ecolibtard recommended and approved adjustments the satellite data didn't show the expected continuing increase they'd claimed for the standard weather stations.
Now the grad students at Washington University are demanding an adjustment to THE MODEL that uses that data to make the satellite information fall into line with earlier, more primitive models using data from the now fully discredited standard ground stations.
Something tells me these young men didn't know how Hansen had the satellites FIXED so they'd show "same as the old stuff" ~ and now they're finding out that FIXED data eventually gets out of whack ~ and most likely because of the FIX, not because of the climate models ~ they, after all, are whacked out anyway
Interested to see Roy Spenser’s response. HE is done a interesting temp study over at this website. Also check out Climate Audit and Wattsupwiththat, they finally got some of the FOIA info they requested and it show that CRU was lying about the Biffra tree ring data...
We're not idiots...and us plain, ignorant folks "gotcha"...
Our scientific “establishment” has become a corrupt monolith of socialism.
They will pound this lie until we are all slaves to the New World Order.
How convenient.
Reminds me of the typical leftist approach to countering the truth when the truth stubbornly refuses to go along with their agenda.
The lefties wanted to raise alarm about ‘unprecedented’ modern-day global temperature levels, but there was that pesky little matter of the Medieval Warm Period, farming settlements in Greenland, growing wine grapes in Britain and all that got in the way. So, like good little Stalinists, they set about to rewrite history. They trotted out bogus explanations (”the MWP was just a regional, not a global, phenomena) and cherry picked their way to a phony hockey stick graph that erased the MWP.
They use the false statistics, false history tactic in other fields, too. Lefties find American freedoms to be offensive to their totalitarian sensibilities. Gun rights are a major impediment to their agenda. So along comes history professor Michael Bellesiles who phonies up some “research” that oh-so-conveniently proves that everything that we thought we knew about guns in the hands of ordinary Americans was wrong. He got caught in the act, and so the lefties had a bit of a setback on that front, but they will regroup and try it again, because the Commies are in it for the long haul.
This “study” has the same smell of manufactured revisionist history about it.
It does no such thing. It brings the three different data sets (radiosonde balloons, surface thermometric, and satellite radiometry) into agreement with one another. All three data sets show some SLIGHT warming over the last century (or that part of it for which they have been available to make measurements).
The MODELS on the other hand, ASSUME a large number of positive feedback effects to artificially magnify that SLIGHT warming into "world catastrophe" temperature increases. Those ASSUMED positive feedback mechanisms are not proving to happen. Roy Spencer goes into great depth on this in his blog.
Of even more interest would be to use the model to determine what the temperature and other weather parameters were for 100 locations on earths 5-10 and 25 years ago. This would be a quick way to determine the value of the model. If it can’t “retro-predict” it’s worthless.
Oh, it's "important" alright, 'cause it now allows them to support their agenda. Scientifically it is not so important.
They identified a problem with the satellite temperature record put together by the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Identified "a" problem? What exactly was that problem, and how does it relate to the temperature data? A problem with the data could be anything from a formatting problem to a precision problem to a misspelling on the title page. I sense smoke and mirrors here.
...it has often been cited by climate change skeptics to cast doubt on models that show the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.
Ah, hence this data must be, must be scrutinized, discredited, and then re calibrated to support the new world order. Great, but has the other data, the data at odds with this data, been similarly scrutinized?
Scientists like Po-Chedley and Fu have been studying the three records because each comes to a different conclusion.
But, but... I thought the science was settled! ;-/ Of course it isn't, really. It is only settled in the minds of those with an agenda, and they will drive the data to fit their vision.
"There's been a debate for many, many years about the different results...
So much for that whole settled thing...
When they applied their correction to the Alabama-Huntsville climate record for a UW-derived tropospheric temperature measurement, it effectively eliminated differences with the other studies.
And the justification for their "correction" is? Hey, anyone can apply a "correction" to anything. Gee, Mr. IRS, I'd like to apply my own "correction" to my gross income before we figure the taxes on it. How about it?
Scientists already had noticed that there were issues with the way the Alabama researchers handled data from NOAA-9...
Notice how carefully worded that is. It doesn't say there is a problem with the data - only with how the researchers handled the data. Obviously they didn't apply the approved "correction" because the data doesn't fit the agenda. So let us "help" you with your "handling" of the data, here... Here is a "correction" that'll help...
"It should therefore make for a better record, as long as UAH accepts it," he said.
Why should anyone accept your fudged data over anyone else's fudged data. We already know, WE KNOW that so-called "climate scientists" in pursuit of their alleged global warming agenda have lied and falsified data. That is a known admitted fact. Therefore right now, no-one in "climate science" has any credibility. I would not accept your analysis if you said the sun will rise tomorrow morning - I'd wait for the dawn to confirm it.
So you can't simply publish a new set of made up numbers that now magically support your agenda. You have to publish everything and the reasoning behind it. If I've got any time over the next couple of weeks, I think I'll see if I can find that paper. What the heck, I could use a few laughs.
Of even more interest would be to use the model to determine what the temperature and other weather parameters were for 100 locations on earths 5-10 and 25 years ago. This would be a quick way to determine the value of the model. If it can’t “retro-predict” it’s worthless.True, but if I recall correctly, this has already been done a long time ago, and the models failed miserably indeed. So, they began tweaking the models’ numerous parameters until they did “predict” the past correctly. Of course, as everybody who has ever tried to use an interpolated curve to extrapolate into the future knows, this does not make the models any better. If anything, they will fail even harder.
They probably know this, or they would proudly make public predictions everywhere…
Kinda like Rat politicians involved in recounts.You count the votes again...and again...and again...and when the first recount that suggests a Rat victory appears...counting over!
The models can not reproduce their projections using actual data from the past past. However, once they "correct" the actual measured temps in the past, it does fit the model.
This is scientific heresy and academic fraud. These men are not scientists. They are charlatons.
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.