Google Earth Engine To Provide Climate Change Data

Meshach tips news that Google has unveiled Google Earth Engine, "a new technology platform that puts an unprecedented amount of satellite imagery and data — current and historical — online for the first time. It enables global-scale monitoring and measurement of changes in the earth’s environment." They're also "donating 10 million CPU-hours a year over the next two years on the Google Earth Engine platform, to strengthen the capacity of developing world nations to track the state of their forests, in preparation for REDD. For the least developed nations, Google Earth Engine will provide critical access to terabytes of data, a growing set of analytical tools and our high-performance processing capabilities."

Re:Raw data, or "adjusted"?

[246o1]

Sounds great, but is the climate data going to be massaged first to make the early 20th century colder, and the late 20th century warmer?

I am sure it will - just waiting for the Drudge Report to tell me so! The argument that there's a giant conspiracy to concoct logical arguments and huge amounts of data in support of a theory that is bad news for everyone makes much more sense than the idea that the activities of billions of humans could ever influence the environment.

Re:Raw data, or "adjusted"?

[NeutronCowboy]

Newsflash - all data is "massaged". It's either normalized, scrubbed of data by faulty measurements and of outliers, corrected for systematic errors, etc. No one works with raw data, because there is often so much noise in data that it is impossible to compare it to anything else.

Re:Raw data, or "adjusted"?

[Mindcontrolled]

Because they have to keep up with the always changing climate effects you guys cause by constantly burning unpredictable amounts of strawmen.

Re:Raw data, or "adjusted"?

[flaming error]

Good point. I've fallen for falsified data before. Thankfully I was able to recognize evidence to the contrary and realize the weakness of my position. I now no longer count myself religious.

Now I just try to follow the evidence where it goes, even if it sometimes makes me re-think my positions. I recommend you try to do the same. It's scary, yet somehow liberating.

Re:Raw data, or "adjusted"?

[microbox]

You, my friend, have committed the fallacy of equivocation [wikipedia.org]. You see, proof in the mathematical sense is not what science does, and not what Al Gore was referring to when he said "The debate is over?". There really are two different things going on, and they both involve logic in different ways. Al Gore was referring to an overwhelming body of knowledge and sound argumentation, which is different to proof in the mathematical sense.

Nonetheless, I suspect that you really have no interest in understanding the underlying arguments -- because it would be too threatening to you.