Saturday, May 03, 2008
Steven Goddard deconstructs NASA's "adjustment" of global climate data, and shows that it has systematically tweaked pre-1970 temperature readings down and post-1998 readings up. To us mildly educated non-scientists, it certainly seems that NASA, whose temperature data maven is Al Gore's advisor, is screwing with the historical record to make a political point.
I am busy today -- we are both moving homes and I have a mountain of day job work -- but I would be fascinated to see whether any of my smart readers can dig up a refutation of Goddard's article. If there is not one, then one is forced to wonder why this is not getting more traction in the mainstream media. It would seem to be devestating to the case that the planet is still warming.
CWCID: Anthony Watts.
Tweaking is inherent in the model. All the data gets fed to the software model and out spits the prediction. Predictions of past data is compared with actuals and the model is then adjusted to make past predictions more accurate. This is supposed to make future predictions more accurate, IF and and BIG IF cause and effects stay the same. Kinda like the financial disclosures, "past performance is not a predictor of future performance".
Also, it is recognized that not all data is equal. Some data is more equal than others, and the lesser data must be compensated for. All for the good of the model you know.
And this is where I get off the bus. These guys are claiming temperature shifts of .1 deg and less, guys it is really tough to measure a .1 deg and do it everyday all day and all year. A deer walking by the station could raise the temp and indeed some pictures of these stations are laughable were their are located, like airports and parking lots.
Additionally the owner of the sw model won't make it public for peer review. Claims the code is old and messy. Which tells this Aerospace Engr that it was written ad-hoc and not tested. Could be many bugs or logic errors in that code and no one will ever know.
Someone in NASA is oviusly tampering with the data to push this whole global warming fruad and unscruploius persons like JAMES HANSEN and others and sinster men like AL GORE,DAVID SUZUKI and JAMES LOVELOCK and the other worshippers of GAIA
Tweaking means the models don't prove squat. If you have to insert fudge factors into your models, your models don't model anything but your data. That's why electronic stock-trading programs, built in the identical manner from the same premises, have been spectacular failures.
Never a more true statement made.
"If you have to insert fudge factors into your models, your models don't model anything but your data."
It's in the analysis of the tweaking that you discover the unknowns. Or "factor X" as I like to say.