Global Warming Conference. Is it credible that 150 years worth of climate data was destroyed to save space?
Topic: Global Warming Conference. Is it credible that 150 years worth of climate data was destroyed to save space?
July 19, 2019 / By Kenyon Question:
The UK papers are ALL over this story. You can read the full story at the link.
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building...
...In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” ...
Best Answers: Global Warming Conference. Is it credible that 150 years worth of climate data was destroyed to save space?
Hosea | 4 days ago
hahahahahaha..the check is in the mail and I will not come in your....geez what a surprise ! people, you need to understand climate change/global warming is worth trillions of $$$$$$$$$$$$.these bastards will lie,cheat and kill to pass this slavery.http://climatechangefraud.com another good site is http://climateaudit.org
👍 96 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Global Warming Conference. Is it credible that 150 years worth of climate data was destroyed to save space?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: Do you think people doubt global warming because it involves data from over 4,000 years ago?
We have 542 million years of climate data to work with much of which is obtained by oxygen isotope analysis. We can't really go further back than this as beyond this point there were only singular cellular organisms i habiting the planet. This dataset provides with a pretty good indication of the historical climate but isn't as accurate as the 800,000 year record obtained from the Antractic ice core samples.
The ice core record is similar to a tree ring record in that each season a new layer of snow falls, in time this is compressed to ice and over the years the layers form one on top of another. Ultimately they form sheets of ice up to 4km thick and trapped within each layer of ice is a sample of that atmosphere at that point in time.
Similarly, mountain glacier records, sedementary deposits, dendrological records can be counted back year by year for many thousands of years.
If the world was only 4000 years old (or 6000 as some claim) then these gelogical records would have to have been formed on a planet very differnt to our own - namely one where a full seasonal cycle lasted no more than 3 days and each season lasted apporx 18 hours. Of course, over this period of time there would be little physical deformation of the seminentary layers and so no distinguishing boundaries between one layer and the next.
Either - Earth is at the very minimum, 800,000 years old. Or, it was once a completely different planet in a different solar system. Or, there is magic involved.
To the scientist it's clear what the evidence is telling us, to those who chose not to believe the science there is no credible alternative explanation so it has to be put down to magic or some other inexplicable cause.
They explain it all right here:
"Thus contrary to what the global warming disinformers say about the recent temperature record, it is almost certainly the case that the planet has warmed up more this decade than NASA says, and especially more than the UK’s Hadley Center says."
So that’s why the NASA temperature record should be seen as more accurate, which puts 2005 as the warmest year on record, with 2007 just edging out 1998 for second warmest. This is “the hottest decade the planet has experienced in many thousands of years,” as climatologist Ken Caldeira puts it. NASA has reported June to October were the hottest on record.* And next year may well be the warmest on record.
👍 30 | 👎 -2
Yes. It is credible.
I work with large amounts of data at my job. I can see how this happens.
It's kind of like the way you might have a record of your total spending on gas for the year, but not every single receipt from when you got gas during the year.
👍 27 | 👎 -8
The data is there - its just not in the original format. They know the variables, you just work backward.
Not an issue unless you are desperate for a shred of evidence to prove your point.
👍 24 | 👎 -14
I think it's a sign that even scientists are starting to call shenanigans on this "Global Warming" bullshit.
👍 21 | 👎 -20
Originally Answered: Will Global Warming/ Climate Change cause >150 million refugees in 40- 70 years?
I cant believe I am saying this. "In my day" I was told the earth would be frozen right now the best scientist of the time were saying it. Seriously their were scifi books where we had cities under the ice. What was happening was the being of the current politicization of science and the start of what I call science as a religion instead of the rigorous practice of testing and retesting that the scientific method demands. Scientist were right about a lot of things. Chlorofluorocarbons, carbon monoxide and other pollutants poring out of our cars tailpipes that the cadiladic converter turned into harmless gases, the use of pesticides that weakened egg shells and I could go on. The one area science was the furthest off was the climate. Now they are telling us if we do not do something now the world will end when their is conflicting scientific data. Test test and retest should be the mantra of every good scientist yet over and over we see preliminary reports. Reports that have flaws reports that have to be modified updated or changed. Computer models that 3 time out of 4 say the earth is headed for a heat wave then 1 out of 4 the earth is headed for a cooling trend. We do need to get off fossil fuels lets do it because we need to move to renewable but lets not forget the real economic and environmental cost of renewable energy. Ever here of the conservation of energy? Another thing that was supposed to happen was massive and I Mean massive world wide food shortages. That hasn't happened yet either. Now the EPA is thinking about calling carbon dioxide, the thing you exhale with every breath, a pollutant. We can not wait till the science is sure we must act now is the what I here over and over. Good scientist make sure they have tested and retested their data. They then open it up to critical evaluation by their piers. For some reason this is not happening on the global warming front. The scientist are disappointed the earth has not warmed as much as their models said it would. But instead of be honest they continue to say we are right without testable results.