Drive by science

[Ari]

So which maps are real?

[Jerome]

My map is of real collected data.

Your map is made-up data.

How this this going over your head?

That is the point, the warming is made-up, there is no warming in the data.

Science is about data, not making up data to fit a conclusion.

[Dragar]

I don't think you read the paper. I found it for you:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1...I-D-14-00006.1

[Dragar]

Also, Jerome, why is one of your pictures in the gif the departure from temperature in absolute terms, while the other in percentage terms?

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't think you read the paper. I found it for you:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1...I-D-14-00006.1

Not sure how you think a paper on sea surface temperature has anything to do with making up temperature data in the Congo...

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Also, Jerome, why is one of your pictures in the gif the departure from temperature in absolute terms, while the other in percentage terms?

One is a representation of real data collected, the other is a representation of made-up data.

That is the point.

[Ari]

Land data good.
Ocean data good.
Land + ocean data bad.

[Jerome]

Ocean data does not determine the ground temperature in the Congo.

[Dragar]

So your problem is with the process by which the data is combined? I think you should read https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring...et-al-2008.pdf

[Jerome]

No, the problem is making up data in places where no data has been collected.

Science has been so devolved that people like yourself really do think making it up is how science is properly done. This is what state run schools get you, plain ignorance.

[Ari]

I just realized you kinda suggested the Mediterranean climate doesnt exist.

[Jerome]

You should take a look at a map, Africa is huge. Gall-Peters is the best for correct relative size.

Now find the Congo area.

Here is where you laugh at yourself for the Mediterranean comparison.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Jerome

No, the problem is making up data in places where no data has been collected.

Which section of Smith et al. 2008 does this refer to?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Jerome

One is a representation of real data collected, the other is a representation of made-up data.

That is the point.

That doesn't seem to be the case. One appears to be one set of data, the other is another set of data. Computing temperature anomalies is much easier than absolute temperature differences, particularly in remote areas. What I suspect you are up in arms about is that the absolute temperature is not computed for those regions, while the anomaly is.

Why use temperature anomalies (departure from average) and not absolute temperature measurements?

Absolute estimates of global average surface temperature are difficult to compile for several reasons. Some regions have few temperature measurement stations (e.g., the Sahara Desert) and interpolation must be made over large, data-sparse regions. In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region's average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.

Using reference values computed on smaller [more local] scales over the same time period establishes a baseline from which anomalies are calculated. This effectively normalizes the data so they can be compared and combined to more accurately represent temperature patterns with respect to what is normal for different places within a region.

For these reasons, large-area summaries incorporate anomalies, not the temperature itself. Anomalies more accurately describe climate variability over larger areas than absolute temperatures do, and they give a frame of reference that allows more meaningful comparisons between locations and more accurate calculations of temperature trends.

So when you make a comparison of two plots like this, you should probably compare the same data sets. To do otherwise would be dishonest. Of course, this is just speculation from a non-expert. To find out what's going on, you should probably contact the authors of the paper, or find someone who has a clearer understanding of the data sets.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That doesn't seem to be the case. One appears to be one set of data, the other is another set of data.

False.

One is a data set, the other is made-up for areas where there is no data.

They literally made-up temperatures for the Congo, for example.

[Jerome]

Then you go on about temperature anomalies.

If you don't have a recorded temperature, you can not create an anomaly from a non-existent temperature.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Which section of Smith et al. 2008 does this refer to?

You brought it up.

You need to show where in the paper sea surface temperatures are used to create a temperature in the Congo where no data had been collected.

[Jerome]

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Jerome

False.

One is a data set, the other is made-up for areas where there is no data.

They literally made-up temperatures for the Congo, for example.

We're going to play this game?

Okay: no it isn't. No they didn't.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Jerome

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data | Daily Mail Online

Ah, that reputable source of truth, the Daily Mail Online!

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Now sure what he's trying to accomplish, but this tear is concurrent with the Yankee EPA bill.

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Ah, that reputable source of truth, the Daily Mail Online!

Nope the source is:

Dr. John Bates, NCDC Principal Scientist, is one of three candidates elected this year to the 15-member Board of Directors of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). Its directors are elected every two years and serve a two-year term. AGU has more than 61,000 members from 148 countries. An AGU member since 1986, Bates previously served as Chairman of its Meetings Committee and was a member of the AGU Council in 2010–2012.

Dr. Bates' technical expertise lies in atmospheric sciences, and his interests include satellite observations of the global water and energy cycle, air-sea interactions, and climate variability. He has authored over 45 publications and has been involved in major national and international programs devoted to the study of meteorological science. Bates received his Bachelor of Science degree in meteorology in 1976 at Florida State University. He received his Masters of Science degree in meteorology in 1982 as well as his Doctor of Philosophy in meteorology in 1986 at University of Wisconsin, Madison.

American Geophysical Union Elects NCDC Scientist to Board | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

[SR71]

http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitu...ail-on-sunday/

The new article in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ is based entirely on an interview with Dr John Bates, a climate scientist formerly employed at NOAA. Publication of the newspaper article was timed to coincide with a blog by Dr Bates in which he outlines his claims in detail.

Dr Bates’ main complaint is that Dr Karl and his co-authors did not follow strict procedures required for NOAA’s ‘operational’ data. It is not yet clear whether Dr Karl should have subjected his research data to the same procedures. Dr Karl, who retired from NOAA in August 2016, has not yet had the opportunity to respond fully to Dr Bates’ allegations.

Dr Bates also claims in his blog that Dr Karl had his “thumb on the scale pushing for, and often insisting on, decisions that maximize warming”, but does not provide any evidence to support this serious allegation.

However, the article by David Rose in ‘The Mail on Sunday’ contains many demonstrably false statements and misrepresentations about the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors.

The article states: “None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results”.

But the article fails to admit that the paper by Dr Karl and co-authors has already been subjected to extensive scrutiny by other researchers since it was published in June 2015.

[SR71]

Retired NOAA scientist feels slighted, sets world afire in revenge

The highly respected American Geophysical Union, on whose board Bates once sat, rebuked Bates for taking his data management concerns to a tabloid, refuted some of Bates’ and Rose’s claims, and linked to two of the above scientific rebuttals:

As to the merits – or lack thereof – of the allegations made in John Bates’ post about data mismanagement, within NOAA, that discussion is and will continue to unfold in dialogue among scientists, such as in this article by Zeke Hausfather from Berkeley Earth and this blog post from the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units.

...

AGU believes that the merits of the Karl et al. (2015) should be and have been discussed in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals. We note that the main results of that study have since been independently replicated by later work. In the meantime, we will continue to stand up for the credibility of climate science, the freedom of scientists to conduct and communicate their science.

... We are closely monitoring how this will play out among policymakers and influencers. For example, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology issued a misleading press release. These types of statements by policymakers that attempt to take one study/dispute and blow it out of proportion are both unhelpful and misleading. We will be working with the science committee to demonstrate the scientific consensus on climate change and to encourage them not to interfere with the scientific process.

[Jerome]

... and the attacks of respected scientists begin as soon as they step out of line with the religious dogma that is scientism.