Global Geological Climate Change... Conference

[SeeMore]

Originally Posted by J. Morgan

For many, the gain of Antarctic ice is meaningless since such gains do not support the common narrative.

The data came from a NASA study using satellite based radar altimeters to measure ice height. It found the aggregate mass experienced an overall increase though there was a concentrated loss on one side of the mass (the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica) which has been the subject of more recent reporting. In total, the net increase was 82 billion tons of ice during 2002-2008 which amounts to a gain of 0.7 inches per year in eastern Antarctica. By contrast, the western side is losing 65 billion tons annually.

To quote the report - (Jay Zwally is a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study)

Zwally wrote, “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away. This is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

[Ray Eklund]

Alaska Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative- Mapping Alaska for the First Time
David F. Maune 2009

An example of something we take as granted.

"Some map errors in Alaska are 100 times larger than allowed by the National Map Accuracy Standards with mountains mapped several miles away from their true horizontal locations and with elevations being in error by hundreds to thousands of feet. Once printed, on a few of USGS Topographical quadrangle maps nationwide have ever been updated, regardless of scale or location".

Consider this quote and the "detailed research" of control data for the Global Warming, Climate Change debate as being accurate and reliable information.

[markdoane]

So you understand we're talking about Meteorology, not Metrology?

[BoldAdventure]

I like peanut butter ice cream.

[Tuco]

Originally Posted by jcl

I am not saying that data prior 1960 is suspect, I am saying that if you want to compare a reading from that time period to a modern reading in the same general location, it is worth understanding how the measurement was taken back then. This doesn't change the absolute number that was recorded back then, but it does allow us to make better comparisons between then and now.

Example: Thermometers at weather stations used to be put in direct sunlight. Maybe it was easier to read them that way. Around 1850, they started getting shields so the thermometers weren't in the direct sun. That introduced a systemic change in the readings. Analysis showed that it was a different type of shift depending on whether it was summer or winter. So, with a lot of confirming data and analysis, it was determined what the offset would have to be, and when it should be applied, to make an old reading directly comparable to a modern reading. That isn't fiddling the data, the data still exists. It is including an adjustment. And the process by which it is done is widely studied, and published openly. Nothing nefarious.

I even provided a link, above, explaining this. It has links to other sites showing what the adjustments were, why they were applied, and so on. Some went up, some went down. It doesn't change what the measured temperature was on some day in 1917, but it does allow us to better compare that reading to a modern reading. Once we know about an error in a record, it seems to me that ignoring it is dishonest. Using the best information available is the most honest approach.

Let's say you are cooking a turkey according to your grandmother's recipe (it being near to Thanksgiving and all, at least for those in the US) Her turkey was always great. Yours is dried out. Everything else is the same. In frustration, you visit her house and check her oven. Turns out when her oven is set to 325, as per her recipe, the oven is actually cooler. As a result, her turkey didn't dry out. Now, faced with this information, you could continue to eat dry turkey, or you could adjust her recipe. It doesn't change the fact that at her house she uses a certain oven setting. You aren't telling her to change, or fiddling her recipe. You are adapting the reading to correct a bias in her oven thermometer, so that you can use her recipe in your oven.

You can claim that "the temperature is the temperature" similar to your claim that "the data is the data" but then you would have to keep eating dry turkey.

How about an Airstream example? Imagine you weigh your truck and trailer at a local scale. You are right on the GVWR limit. OK, you carry on. Next week, the scale has a notice up. They had set the tare wrong, and so the old measurements weren't accurate. They know by how much. Doubtful, you weigh your rig again. Sure enough, you are now over the GVWR by the amount of the adjustment. And they have provided confirmation of which reading is correct for the scale now, using third party calibration. Secure in your belief that data is data, you can rely on the old record and take your chances, or adjust your cargo weight. Your choice. Myself, I would want to use the best data available. Your call for your rig. But in the face of better information, stubbornly sticking to an old reading seems risky.

You seem to think that some of us are pro AGW. Not true in my case. I wish it wasn't warming. I am not pro AGW, I am pro science. It isn't a religion, it is science. Nonsensical clailms gets sorted out through the application of the scientific process.

Skeptical Science is not pro AGW. It is, similarly, pro science. As compared to tabloid newspapers, however, it provides sources and links to reviewed papers. That way people can sort out for themselves. I would much rather trust a source using that approach than one (like the Telegraph) which writes that no one should believe their data because they are publishing opinions,

When trying to comprehend a dissertation, one must make conclusions as to the information being presented. In your lengthy post what I got was this. Climate scientists didn't like the methodology of past scientists, so they altered the data to fit their own model. By doing so they invalidated the data.

I won't take the time to alter the Airstream model but lets look at grandma's turkey...

Your rummaging around in the garage and come across grandma's cookbook. In it you find the recipe for her famous turkey dinner. You think back fondly of going to grandma's house for Thanks Giving and Christmas dinners and remember just how good it was! So off to the store you go and get all the ingredients listed in grandmas recipe. You follow the recipe to the letter and...the turkey is dry. As a scientist you say to yourself that grandma's oven must not have been calibrated correctly and the temperature was off. Since grandma has been gone some time and anyone who might have seen her make the turkey are gone, you make an educated guess as to the problem. What if grandma with all her years as a cook smelled when the bird was done? What if she used a meat thermometer to let her know the same thing? What if there was a special pan and lid she used to cook the bird in? What if she covered the bird in butter a certain way that isn't listed in the recipe? The list isn't endless, but you get the picture. Since the oven, grandma and any eyewitnesses are long gone how can you make sure your assumption is correct? Grandma's recipe might be spot on, but your interpretation of the procedure is wrong. You don't know because you weren't there and can't go back and watch. The same is true of the data and by manipulating it it might be turning juicy turkey into charcoal.

You say that Skeptical Science is not a pro AGW site, but on each page links to pro AGW matirial exist. such as "Most used climate myth's", The Debunking Handbook", "Climate Change Denial, heads in the sand" and so on. It seems kinda obvious that it is pro AGW.

[Janet H]

Folks we are closing this thread as it's wildly off topic for the forum and the source of some dispute.


Here's a refresher of our site rules: http://www.airforums.com/forums/misc...ork&page=rules and it's worth noting that Discussions about politics, weaponry and religion are permitted only in association with the topic of this forum. By this metric, this topic has missed the mark.

We understand that this topic is important and of interest to many, but we are an Airstream board and ill equipped to manage political content and opinion. There are other places to discuss this topic but few for in depth Airstream discussions - we're opting to focus on the subject that we all share in common - Airstreams. Thanks for understanding.