The more that inquiring, knowledgeable minds examine the raw temperature data collected from various points on Planet Earth--and the methods used to collect and analyze that data--the more instances are uncovered of raw data showing decreasing temperatures being manipulated to show increasing temperatures. A couple of real stunners have shown up recently, the first of which is a comparison of the raw data actually collected at Darwin Airport in northern Australia for more than a century and that data after it was "adjusted." The second example is a similar before/after comparison of data collected at the Brisbane Eagle Farm Airport in eastern Australia. If you have even a modest respect for accurate reporting of data, the results of these analyses will make you queasy, guaranteed.
The Brisbane Airport Data. The raw data plotted on a graph shows a cooling trend:
The adjusted data shows a warming trend:
Here's a comparison of the two charts:
Read the whole thing at The Dog Ate My Data.
As AJ Strata at The Strata-Sphere pointed out,
The Darwin Airport Data. In the graph below, the blue (descending) line plots the raw temperature data collected at Darwin Airport from the early 1880s on. The red (ascending) line shows what happened to that line after the raw data was "adjusted." What certainly looked like a cooling trend has been adjusted to look like a very definite warming trend. To see a brilliant analysis starting with the raw data, go to the posting by Willis Eschenbach at Watts Up With That?
The Brisbane Airport Data. The raw data plotted on a graph shows a cooling trend:
The adjusted data shows a warming trend:
Here's a comparison of the two charts:
Read the whole thing at The Dog Ate My Data.
As AJ Strata at The Strata-Sphere pointed out,
This is why real scientists share their data, algorithms and code for peer review, to ensure there is no crazy fudging of data.Who knows what really happened in these cases? Bad judgment? Poor math skills? Forcing data to conform to an expected outcome? Zealous misrepresentation to serve the "higher cause" of "saving the planet" from pollution and overpopulation?
Whatever it is, it's not science. And whatever the problem, it's not likely to be solved until it can be named.
__________
Related:
__________
Related:
- Copenhagen Update: Goodbye, UN, Goodbye?
- Copenhagen Climate Conference Gets Off to a Sick Start
- Copenhagen: The Climate Fiction Experience Begins Today
- Copenhagen Countdown: 3
- Copenhagen Countdown: 4
- Copenhagen Countdown: 5
- Copenhagen Countdown: 6
- ClimateGate: New Zealand Climate Scientists Aren't So Hot
- What ClimateGate Really Means
- Meditation: Issac Newton on Truthful Reporting of Data
- ClimateGate Who's Who
- Make Way for the Code Breakers
- Obama's Science Czar Holds a Whip in the Tree-Ring Circus
- What You Did Was Such a Crime
- Heh, Heh, Heh. Vincit Omnia Veritas
No comments:
Post a Comment