NSIDC med uanmeldte isjusteringer - nå blir de passet på!

Startet av Telehiv, april 19, 2012, 10:39:26 AM

« forrige - neste »


Mistilliten til klimaforskningen med tilhørende dataregistreringsmoral er blitt bare mer og mer forsterket etterhvert som avsløringene av uetisk og taktisk databehandling har blitt rullet fram de senere årene.

Når våkne øyne sjekket den siste arktiske isgrafen fra The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) gikk alarmen ganske raskt: De hadde endret grafen i forhold til 1979-2000-snittet de opererer med. Og da selvsagt slik at det ble mindre is enn før. Ikke nok med det, grafen var også endret bakover i tid, med samme effekt.

I mailutvekslingen i etterkant mellom Steve Goddard og Anthony Watts (WUWT) ble dette fra NSIDCs side  forsøkt forklart med at endringene skyldtes at de hadde begynt med en 5-dagers snitt i stedet for den gamle døgnmetoden. Hvorpå de beklaget så mye at det ikke ble orientert om dette på forhånd.

Vel, vel, disse folka er ikke tatt for de verste sakene, men de fikk ihvertfall en støkk såpass at de trolig melder fra på forhånd om "statistikkendringer" neste gang. Hele miseren kan dere lese om her:



PS: Vi har flere ganger diskutert Willis Eschenbach her på forumet. Jeg er blant dem som syns han har mange gode og klare tanker om mye, og reagerer ikke så mye på når han skjeller ut dummere folk enn seg selv; hvorfor ikke? Er verden tjent med grøthoder som ruller seg selvhøytidelig rundt i spaltene? Det er vel bedre for klimasaken at mer kompetente klyser gjør det? Syns Eschenbach hjelper godt til der.

I kommentarspalten til ovennevnte WUWT-artikkel leverer han en suveren refs av klimafeigingene; de som utmerket godt har visst at The Team har løyet og svindlet og trikset med data og konklusjoner, dyttet ut annerledes tenkende, og alt til maktklimafaget tilhørende - OG TIET OM DET AV REN FEIGHHET:

Willis Eschenbach says:
April 18, 2012 at 11:30 pm

First, let me congratulate both Dr Walt and Anthony on this interchange, kudos to you both. That's how it should work.

My only other comment to Dr. Walt, about his final comment:

As a final, personal note let me make a more general comment. I am saddened that some people have become so cynical about climate scientists and climate data. I can appreciate that scientists have brought some this on themselves. And of course, a healthy dose of skepticism is essential to science. But it is disappointing to see people immediately jump to conclusions and assume the worst. I hope people will take from this explanation that NSIDC, and scientists in general, are working hard to the best we can, both in understanding the science and communicating it.

Dr. Walt, people distrust climate scientists because, as climategate made perfectly clear, we were lied to and cheated by the leaders of the AGW movement, the key players in the game.

And while I am very clear that you are a good guy and an ethical scientist, and while I know you were not one of those that lied and cheated, you were indeed one of the many who said nothing after the lies were exposed. You are one of those who continues to act towards the people who did lie to us as though they had never done anything wrong.

Very few climate scientists have spoken out against the outrageous scientific malfeasance and even lawbreaking by the AGW glitterati. Even fewer climate scientists have tried to get those that lied and cheated to apologize, or to pay even the slightest price for their actions. Y'all still fete them and invite them to address the conferences as though nothing untoward every happened.

So I'm sorry, Dr. Walt, but you are condemned by your silence and by your inaction to be subjected to the same opprobrium and the same mistrust as those who actually did lie, cheat, steal, subvert the IPCC, destroy evidence and encourage others to do so, pack the peer-revew boards, and try to get editors fired for publishing science that they disagreed with.

Next, we are not "cynical" about climate scientists. We are realistic about climate scientists. We got screwed by your fearless leaders, and you and most of the rest said nothing, not one damn word of protest ... now you seem surprised and say you are "saddened" that we don't trust you. Mistrust is the realistic and expected response to being lied to, it is not cynicism in any form.

One final point. For you to feel "saddened" is totally inappropriate, and it is part of the reason we still don't trust you.

I feel saddened, and I am entitled to, because I fought hard against the loss of trust. I have done everything I could to call the culprits to account, and I have been thwarted in part by the obstinate silence of the quietly complicit ... so yes, I feel sad about that.

You have no right feel saddened, you forfeited that by your silence. You should feel responsible, because you said and did nothing . The fact that you feel sad instead of feeling responsible is just one more reason why we don't trust you.

You guys seem to think that this mistrust will go away if you ignore it ... sorry. It doesn't go away, it just gets hangs out and even gets worse, as this latest episode amply illustrates. I don't know what you might do about it at this late date, you've left it awfully long to take a principled stand, but if I were in your shoes, I'd be doing something other than saying you feel sad.
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten


Og her er en våken kar til som peker på mer mugne forhold:

NZ Willy says:

April 19, 2012 at 12:09 am

Yay, thanks Anthony, that does explain the change in the Antarctic graph as well, even tho not mentioned. They do other adjustments that I've seen mentioned before, like for reflectivity of water-on-ice during the melt season, etc, and that would also cause offsetting conditions between Arctic and Antarctic, if treated (anti) symmetrically. However, note the 5-day average used. This wouldn't be needed if each day's measurement was robust. There is obviously a lot of noise compared with the signal. A few assumptions can help to minimize that noise, and somewhere in that code, I'll bet, some are built in. Worth watching onwards. Trust, but verify


I samme svarspalte, enda en interessant kommentar:

beesaman says:

April 19, 2012 at 12:49 am

I love it how Arctic ice prior to 1979 is assumed somehow to be thicker and greater in extent. We have very little accurate evidence either way for that and the further we go back the less evidence we have. What I have observed is that the outer regions of Arctic ice fluctuate massively and much of that depends upon local weather events rather than global climate shifts and that the core Arctic ice can be likewise influenced. However, there does seem to have been some warming since the late seventies and a reduction in that core Arctic ice, but that may well be reaching a reversal point. It will be interesting to watch over the next few years, especially as any recovery would be a real death blow to AGW and boy do the main protagonists know it, hence the healthy skepticism concerning any changes to such data. After all you can fudge some of the data some of the time but you can't fudge all of the data all of the time!

Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten


Det som må være en god konklusjon ettersom nye slike "justeringer" stadig dukker opp angående havnivå, temperatur, orkaner, sjøis osv, er at de har sett det nødvendig å jukse med absolutt alt for å tilpasse virkeligheten til modeller og hypoteser. En virkelig flott gjeng dette, som har snudd verden på hodet med juks og fanteri.
Ja heldigvis flere der ser galskapen; men stadig alt for få.
Dertil kommer desværre de der ikke vil se, hva de ser.



Når vi først fokuserer på datatriksingen til The Team: Nå kom altså CRUTEM4-avsløringene også! (se egen tråd)
Vitenskapen kan av og til risikere å bli innhentet av sannheten