Skip to content

Marc Morano On Bad Data

July 5, 2019

 

 

Marc Morano in fine form!

12 Comments
  1. July 5, 2019 11:45 am

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.

  2. Graeme No.3 permalink
    July 5, 2019 12:03 pm

    But are politicians listening? Look at the UK parliament rushing to vote for a carbon free future. Illustrates that the tale of the gadarene swine being infected with madness and plunging off the cliff.

  3. Devoncamel permalink
    July 5, 2019 12:10 pm

    Spoiler alert! The following quote at the end says it all.
    ‘Do you get the sense that Climate Change is a lot more than about just climate?’

    • Harry Passfield permalink
      July 5, 2019 10:05 pm

      What you said!

  4. Robert Christopher permalink
    July 5, 2019 12:26 pm

    Torqued up?
    @3:35

  5. Phoenix44 permalink
    July 5, 2019 12:52 pm

    Moreno makes the point that the data are wrong both ways – too hot and too cold – which is exactly what you would expect from a large data set like this. What you would also therefore expect is that the errors cancel each other out over time, and that the averages of lots of data points over lots of time actually come pretty close to reality.

    The mistake that is then made is to try and “improve” the data. Notably, that has a large bias towards increasing the averages in recent times and decreasing them in older data. That is the exact opposite of what you would expect – if errors are not systematic but are random and both too hot and too cold, then “improvement” should make no difference to the averages.

    This is why the tampering is almost certainly wrong and biased. It is exceedingly unlikely that there was an overall bias one way or the other in the large amounts of data collected that has no cause (Alarmists have not shown that there was a systematic problem), let alone two biases that happen to fit their theory. It is far more likely that they are adjusting the data to fit what they want – think they ought – to see, even if that is an unconscious bias.

    • Phoenix44 permalink
      July 5, 2019 1:02 pm

      To put it another way, the adjustments swap accuracy (produced by averaging) for precision (getting results to look the same) and then claim to have improved accuracy.

    • Broadlands permalink
      July 5, 2019 1:31 pm

      “The mistake that is then made is to try and “improve” the data. Notably, that has a large bias towards increasing the averages in recent times and decreasing them in older data.”

      This is exactly what NOAA/NCDC has done for all of the official monthly data in almost every US state that were recorded by its predecessor, the US Weather Bureau. The lowering of older data is seasonal and averages about 0.8°F. This is the opposite of what one might expect to eliminate bias from the increasing UHI-effect over time.

  6. July 5, 2019 3:43 pm

    This video is actually rather weak, focusing on the non-issue of a small amount of defective data, which any reputable data processing would shrug off with ease, though the CRUTEM (land) part of HadCRUT probably does not qualify as being reputable. Academics (CRU) doing quality control is often not a pretty sight, but the overall philosophy behind CRUTEM is sound: they rely on countries to sort out their own data, rather than the Mickey Mouse approach of everyone else, who sort it out badly themselves, with no metadata, and not separately on maximum and minimum temperatures, which are produced by different thermometers.

  7. July 5, 2019 5:40 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  8. Brian James permalink
    July 5, 2019 6:39 pm

    July 2, 2019 How Plants Breathe & How Humans Shaped Their ‘Lungs’

    Scientists have discovered how plants create networks of air channels – the lungs of the leaf – to transport carbon dioxide to their cells. Experts led by the Institute for Sustainable Food at the University of Sheffield revealed how plants provide a steady flow of air to every cell.

    https://principia-scientific.org/how-plants-breathe-how-humans-shaped-their-lungs/

  9. July 10, 2019 6:34 am

    A reaction to the UK House of Commons passing a net zero directive emissions by 2050>

    When will people realise that any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
    · The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
    · According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly since before Roman times, in fact since ~1000 BC.
    · At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming to its end.
    · The weather gets worse in colder times.
    · The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again eventually resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.

    The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.

    Spending any effort, without due diligence, let alone at GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems monumentally stupid.

    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/
    https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: