Global Warming

[ATT]

Emails stolen from UEA, which serves as a repository for climate data, ostensibly show that the scientists are ignoring data that question whether global warming is real and that they have conspired to disparage those who question their work (this, according to James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma).

The actual data that exists at UEA is just part of a dataset maintained at IPCC and mirrored at NOAA and NASA's GISS site, all data is publicly available.

QUOTE: From USA Today, 11/30/09
"The East Anglia temperature records aren't the core problem," says climatologist Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., which advocates for limited regulation.

Michaels, a skeptic of the worst implications of a warming climate, comes under criticism in the e-mails for a 2007 Journal of Geophysical Research paper he co-wrote. The paper said that industry and urban heat explain half of the temperature rise seen over land. "Attempts to influence editors not to publish papers you don't like: That's the real issue," Michaels says.
END QUOTE

It would appear that (at least in this example), rather than this being a case of 'faked data', it's more involved with personal disagreement between climatologists and attempts to suppress publication. There is simply too much data to be correlated and from too many (redundant) sources for any one climatological team to manifestly 'fake' any raw-data and get away with it.

This is not to say that 'opinions' reflected in the resulting publications submitted for peer-review haven't been subject to suppression attempts, but the data itself remains as-is.

You might also notice that the target of the above suppression attempt is an individual who has blamed industry and urban heat for half of the cause of warming, but that's beside the point.

Tony
.

[ATT]

For any who are interested, this is an archive of everything taken from UEA:

QUOTE: wikileaks.org 11/21/09
This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.

This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
END QUOTE

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

Tony

[ATT]

BTW, yesterday I voiced interest in obtaining some weather data from an unbiased source, perhaps yahoo.

Where does Yahoo! get its weather data from?
weather.com

Where does weather.com get its weather data from?
National Climatic Data Center

QUOTE:
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) is the largest and most diverse environmental data center in the world containing more than 90 percent of NOAAs data. Data archives at NCDC hold a treasure trove of meteorological/ climatological information, environmental satellite data, and NEXRAD weather radar data. These data are a cornerstone for the prediction of future events which affect the world's environment and economy. The data have become critical to the scientific community and policy makers in regard to global climate variability and trends.

In many regards, this collection represents this nation's heritage in that it contains the history of meteorological observations since the 1700s. The collection is so extensive that it has been estimated that the large majority of all meteorological records ever taken in the United States are available in some form in NCDC's archives.

NCDC's data are available in both digital and non-digital form...
END QUOTE

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html

We can start off small, perhaps a few cities in the US to see if we can see a slow gradual warming over the fluctuations.

Paul, there's much more to it than air-temperature and I think you realize that localized results over a short time-period are at the very least, misleading if not entirely meaningless.

If you seriously intend to mount an independent assessment of climatological data, you would most probably want to average the findings over as many years as you could find data for. In that case you have few choices other than to use archived data from various national (and/or international) sources.

You might do well to download the archive of stolen emails/program code/data-models I posted earlier to get an idea of what's involved (and also see what was slated for redaction).

If you are only interested in temperatures, there are: vapor-temps, air-temps, surface-temps, ocean-temps to reconcile into something approaching valid results - some data from legacy (older) data will be missing several of these components, in which case you will have to choose giving the missing components a weight-value or excluding the component from the entirety of your data altogether - the validity of your result will depend on how you choose to deal with this.

To extrapolate for missing data in past records, it's often useful to model various factors in a 'what-if' manner in order to back-engineer for results that contribute to present conditions. I see you have some programming experience so you may want to develop algorithms that would allow programmatic insertion of data automatically until present known conditions result from past factors, this would speed the insertion of missing data.

You could actually do this manually with a spreadsheet for small datasets, however, for anything of significant size, programmatic insertion would be required.

Have you considered that all this attention towards carbon-footprint (or not) may be a mechanism to turn our focus away from investigating a more serious and perhaps intentional manipulation?

It may be more useful to develop a database of 'markers' such as plankton die-off, dead-water, species depletion, etc. and attempt to find common-cause other than to concentrate solely on temperature rise/fall.

Tony

[PaulLowrance]

Paul, there's much more to it than air-temperature and I think you realize that localized results over a short time-period are at the very least, misleading if not entirely meaningless.

As stated, the interest is in obtaining the database, which is a long term database.

If you are only interested in temperatures, there are: vapor-temps, air-temps, surface-temps, ocean-temps to reconcile into something approaching valid results - some data from legacy (older) data will be missing several of these components, in which case you will have to choose giving the missing components a weight-value or excluding the component from the entirety of your data altogether - the validity of your result will depend on how you choose to deal with this.

I don't believe that their could be a long term global air warming and a global ground cooling trend at the same time in the same location. So I analyzing air temperature is fine.

Have you considered that all this attention towards carbon-footprint (or not) may be a mechanism to turn our focus away from investigating a more serious and perhaps intentional manipulation?

No, I think there is a huge anti global warming movement. I think companies that could be harmed by the green movement & global warming movement have incentives to do away with such movements. What's interesting is the # of anti-global warming people at this forum who are "supposedly" interested in legit global clean free energy research. IMO that's a contradiction. If I was a filthy rich scumbag in the oil industry, I'd pay people under the table to post here under countless different user names to distract anyone from legit research, and that's being serious. That is exactly what an intelligent scumbag should do. That in itself could make an interesting investigation. 

There could never be enough focus on carbon-footprint.

It may be more useful to develop a database of 'markers' such as plankton die-off, dead-water, species depletion, etc. and attempt to find common-cause other than just temperature rise/fall.

LOL, sorry, I cannot be talked out of analyzing temperature changes!


Paul

[MasterPlaster]

You better take a look a the Copenhagen treaty and see what the true advocates of global warming and climate change are after.

By the way did you know Rothschild is going to buy all the UK roads?
The charlatans are all lining up to fleece the public even more.