Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (65120)	1/24/2015 6:14:18 PM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Respond to of 69300

Don't be ridiculous! All Sciences amend their data and their conclusions on a daily basis as they incorporate new findings and improved qualifiers into their analysis. Our entire history of earth and life is changed every day. For instance, in the field of paleontology, new fossils cause us to revise all our graphs of life-lines and times. All this conspiracy crap is just small-minded nonsense from those who refuse to accept that we are responsible, because they believe we are intruding on the will of "God"...who is supposed to be in charge! What a laugh!! You guys are so transparent. There is a reason why all your graphs and conspiracy blogs originate in Fundy sites! The facts are SIMPLE. data.giss.nasa.gov "Our first published results ( Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s. The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability. This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which now stands at about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981" pubs.giss.nasa.gov "Data collected and recorded by thousands of individuals with equipment and procedures subject to change over time inevitably contains many errors and inconsistencies, some of which will be impossible to identify and correct. The issue is whether the errors are so large that their effect on the temperature analysis is comparable to the climate change that we are attempting to measure. It turns out, as the global maps of temperature change illustrate, that the analyzed temperature changes generally have a clear physical basis associated with large-scale climatological patterns, and the greatest changes occur in remote locations where effects of local human influence are minimal. This suggests that the influence of errors is not dominant, perhaps because many of the errors in recording temperature are random in nature. Nevertheless, it is important to examine data quality to try to minimize local errors and to obtain an indication of the nature and magnitude of any artificial sources of temperature change. The GHCN data have undergone extensive quality control, as described by Peterson et al. [1998c]. In their data cleaning procedure they nominally exclude individual station months (i.e., monthly mean temperatures at a given station) that differ by more than five standard deviations (5s) from the long-term mean for that station month. This procedure may exclude valid data points, but the number is so small in a physically plausible distribution that such deletions have little effect on the average long-term global change. They also examine those station months that differ from the long-term mean by between 2.5sand 5s, retaining those that are consistent with nearest neighbor stations, and they perform several other quality checks that are described by Peterson et al. [1998c].

To: Brumar89 who wrote (65120)	1/25/2015 5:41:03 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

"The impact of our data deletions and alterations is small compared with the climate changes discussed in this paper. The largest effects are those due to the changes on St. Helena and to a lesser extent Hawaii. Nevertheless, we wish to continue to clean and improve the basic station data, if problems or improvements can be identified. In section 10 we describe easy access to all of our station data via the world wide web. We would welcome feedback from users on any specific data in this record." Go ahead, Brumar! Assist dedicated Science with your thoughtful and unbiased input! :-) :-) pubs.giss.nasa.gov