Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

[Blackrook]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Defund organizations that support 'global warming' and/or climate change until it is taken out of the political arena.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[EverCurious]

^^ One of my favorite bands

 

[frigidweirdo]

Fun, you go onto one website which is quite right wing, which sources a website which is a climate change denial site.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

They outright told us that Global Warming is a scheme to redistribute wealth

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

Well, let's do the math.

The source of 'Global Warming' is the Ideological Left.

The Ideological Left rest entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

Truth is essential to trust... .

Absent objectivity, there is no potential to know truth... and subsequently there is no potential for trust.

Thus we can know that the Ideological Left can never be trusted, as they've not only no means to discern truth, they've no concern for what the truth is... .

And this without regard to what the subject is.

But what's the point of considering a subject with potentially catastrophic consequences... when the entity making the case can't be trusted to provide an accurate report on the time of day.

 

[Davros]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

From the Watts Up With That? website

The blue line shows the number of stations that are taking recordings. The red line shows where there is data missing. Usually this data is between 1 and 9 days. So in theory ALL of them could be one day missing something. Making assumptions that the temperature in Singapore was 35C degrees every day of the month except the one day they forgot to measure because it was at -50C degrees simply isn't going to happen.

All in all, if you look at the last 15 years you're looking at less than 1/4 of the data is missing possibly 1 day, and not more than 9 days.

Now this chart, they've gone from less than 25% where they have to fill in data because it's not been recorded, for whatever reason, such as electricity failure in third world countries etc. And they've got the purple line where the records are "estimated", as far as I can make out because a little bit of the information is missing.

This would be potentially 1/30th of 1/4 of the information. So, 95% of the data isn't 100% complete.

And again, how wild are the temperatures we're looking at. If you have temperatures for the month that range between a few degrees, and then they have to estimate a temperature one day, and it's the same as the 10 days before, chances are the temperature is going to be pretty close.

So say 95% of the data is wrong is misleading. 95% of the data, based on 1/120th of the information being estimated, which might be out by a small amount, shows how you can make statistics say what you like.

Is 95% of the data wrong or is less than 1% of the data slightly out? There's a big difference between the two.

Their conclusions is:

"The US accounts for 6.62% of the land area on Earth, but accounts for 39% of the data in the GHCN network. Overall, from 1880 to the present, approximately 99% of the temperature data in the USHCN homogenized output has been estimated (differs from the original raw data). Approximately 92% of the temperature data in the USHCN TOB output has been estimated. The GHCN adjustment models estimate approximately 92% of the US temperatures, but those estimates do not match either the USHCN TOB or homogenized estimates."

So, the US makes up 39% of the data means what? Does it mean that 39% of the data is being used equally with the other data, or does it mean that they adjust the data to make it fit? Well they sourced their own previous article and it doesn't say. So.... they're making a claim and not backing it up.

The point here should be that many third world nations are third world nations and can't always collect data as well as a first world country. Their data might not be 100% perfect, that doesn't mean that all the data around the world is wrong. It also doesn't mean that 95% of data, or 99% of data is irrelevant.

Approximately 66% of global surface temperature data consists of estimated values

The previous article suggests that 66% of data contains some estimates. So they can't even decide if it's 66% of 99%.

Even the 66% of data with estimates doesn't mean it's wildly wrong. It means that some of the data is estimated. It's not hard to estimate the data in many cases. If you look at the weather for 4 days and then not the fifth and the temperature feels about the same, then look on the 6th day and it's about the same and feels the same, you could pretty much guess what the temperature on the 5th day was.

So while they make valid points that the data is 100% reliable, there is nothing to suggest the data is too unreliable in order to change global temperatures massively. You're talking about 1% of data being estimated and it's probably not being estimated outside of a 1C degree of inaccuracy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

The issue isn't even global warming. The Earth can warm up naturally. The issue is man made global warming.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

The issue isn't even global warming. The Earth can warm up naturally. The issue is man made global warming.

Dude... you're talking to people who would have you believe that paying people to not work will somehow inspire them to seek gainful employment. They can't understand the lofty intellectual ins and outs of cause and effect... which is compounded by their rejection of objectivity, thus they possess no means to so much as recognize truth, let alone the means to understand how to find it and you expect them to offer up honest debate?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

Yep. An idiot.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted, scamp.

But I want you to know that it's clear to me that you've done the VERY BEST you can, bless your little heart!

 

[Old Rocks]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

LOL. So what you are saying is that the vast majority of scientists in the world cannot be trusted. Since virtually all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger, I guess that they are all in on a vast conspiracy that spans all the Earth's nations and cultures.

Why yes, we really should trust obese junkies on the AM radio, fake English lords, and undegreed ex-TV weatherment for our climate science. And only fly in jets designed by Holy Roller preachers, use computers only built by Creationists.

 

[Old Rocks]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

Well, let's do the math.

The source of 'Global Warming' is the Ideological Left.

The Ideological Left rest entirely upon Relativism.

Relativism rejects the objectivity that is essential to truth.

Truth is essential to trust... .

Absent objectivity, there is no potential to know truth... and subsequently there is no potential for trust.

Thus we can know that the Ideological Left can never be trusted, as they've not only no means to discern truth, they've no concern for what the truth is... .

And this without regard to what the subject is.

But what's the point of considering a subject with potentially catastrophic consequences... when the entity making the case can't be trusted to provide an accurate report on the time of day.

You dumb ass, you don't even know what the hell you are talking about. Nothing but really dumb shit coming out of your mouth. The theory of GHG warming was first mentioned in the 1820's by the Josesph Fourier, from his calculations, the amount of energy re-emitted from the earth should have had the oceans frozen clear down to the equator. He stated that there was probably something in the atmosphere that was absorbing some of that energy.

Then in 1858, Tyndall of England measured the IR absorption spectra of the various atmospheric gases. And in 1896, Svante Arrhenius estimated the effects of the doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

If you weren't such an ignorant ass, you would know that scientists from every nation in the world have been warning about the effects of the warming they have been seeing, particularly in the last two decades.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

The issue isn't even global warming. The Earth can warm up naturally. The issue is man made global warming.

Dude... you're talking to people who would have you believe that paying people to not work will somehow inspire them to seek gainful employment. They can't understand the lofty intellectual ins and outs of cause and effect... which is compounded by their rejection of objectivity, thus they possess no means to so much as recognize truth, let alone the means to understand how to find it and you expect them to offer up honest debate?

There are people on both sides who don't bother with reality. It's quite sad people don't want to see the truth, they want to make their own truth.

 

[PK1]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

---
I would rather trust the top scientists who specialize in the topic rather than your relatively IGNORANT opinion.
.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Global warming is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.

The issue isn't even global warming. The Earth can warm up naturally. The issue is man made global warming.

Dude... you're talking to people who would have you believe that paying people to not work will somehow inspire them to seek gainful employment. They can't understand the lofty intellectual ins and outs of cause and effect... which is compounded by their rejection of objectivity, thus they possess no means to so much as recognize truth, let alone the means to understand how to find it and you expect them to offer up honest debate?

There are people on both sides who don't bother with reality. It's quite sad people don't want to see the truth, they want to make their own truth.

The truth is that the Earth's climate's consistently dominate trait is change. Therefore hysteria regarding 'CLIMATE CHANGE' is not just absurd, it's hysterically absurd.

What's more, the variables that need to be considered are beyond the scope of calculating, given that the variables vary, the inaccuracies compound so quickly that an accurate forecast of climate futures, is beyond the means of humanity, given the tendency of human beings to screw off, screw up and compound our errors.

But, if it ever becomes possible to calculate, that will not come as a consequence of a cult who rejects the very objectivity fundamentally essential to the task.

On THAT... I'm sure we can agree.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

---
I would rather trust the top scientists who specialize in the topic rather than your relatively IGNORANT opinion.
.

ROFLMNAO!

The Appeal to Authority. The BACKBONE of Sharia!

 

[PK1]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

---
I would rather trust the top scientists who specialize in the topic rather than your relatively IGNORANT opinion.
.

ROFLMNAO!

The Appeal to Authority. The BACKBONE of Sharia!

---
Gee, you are science-IGNORANT.
Science is an "authority" you are welcome to dispute, but you need to provide rational data to support your alternative hypotheses.

Faith don't cut it.
.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Almost All US Temperature Data Used In Global Warming Models Is Estimated or Altered

The people pushing global warming can't be trusted.

---
I would rather trust the top scientists who specialize in the topic rather than your relatively IGNORANT opinion.
.

ROFLMNAO!

The Appeal to Authority. The BACKBONE of Sharia!

---
Gee, you are science-IGNORANT.
Science is an "authority" ... .
.

Science is ONLY an authority where the science is objective.

There's nothing objective about a 'science' which hangs a climate threat around the fundamental characteristic of climate.

But hey... as an imbecile, there is NO WAY you could have known that.