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

[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.

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.

The problem isn't that the climate changes. The problem is that man made pollution causes something irreparable in the climate that causes major problems to the Earth and to the creatures that live on this plant.

One argument is that the Earth could survive a major catastrophe. This is true but what isn't true is that humans would survive it. So... it's all a matter of whether you want humans to survive, and other creatures.

Looking at historical data I would say that the Earth should have reached a peak of warmth and should be getting colder now.

If you put natural global cooling alongside man made global warming you get a slight increase in global temperatures. Enough for deniers to say nothing much is happening. But it's not happening because they don't understand.

Now, if we work on the basis that man made global warming is happening, and CO2 is increasing and one of the major causes of this, and we let CO2 levels get out of control, what will happen?

The answer is we don't know.

We can guess.

We can guess at why bees are dying and we can guess the consequences of bees dying. Without them we might have severe food shortages.

What other effects will happen? If you run into a lion's cage, you might not find a lion, but you might find a hungry lion ready to kill and eat you. Would you go in prepared for the worst or the best?

 

[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" ... .
.

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.

---
Again, you reveal your IGNORANCE about SCIENCE.
Good science uses objective methods.
If not, it should not be published in reputable journals.
Some of the controversy in good science is about interpretation of results, which leads to alternative hypotheses for future research.

Feel free to criticize science you think is "bad", but you need to provide more than your ignorant opinions to be taken seriously.
.

 

[depotoo]

Why do you keep repeating that falsehood? Only one reason, you are profiting off of it.

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.

 

[depotoo]

Science that considers it acceptable to be within a 2.6c tolerance, yet claims even a .5c upswing points to agw? What a laugh!

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.

---
Again, you reveal your IGNORANCE about SCIENCE.
Good science uses objective methods.
If not, it should not be published in reputable journals.
Some of the controversy in good science is about interpretation of results, which leads to alternative hypotheses for future research.

Feel free to criticize science you think is "bad", but you need to provide more than your ignorant opinions to be taken seriously.
.

 

[MDiver]

Those pesky disappearing glaciers are no doubt a figment of our imagination. Despite having lived in the pacific northwest for decades, we've never had such a warm winter, significant lack of rainfall and consistently hot summer in recollection.
To believe that the vast majority of mainstream scientists citing the problem of global warming are somehow in some conspiracy together along with the liberals is, well, retarded.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

Deny is a Cult word. No real scientist calls skeptics a "DENIER!"

 

[PK1]

Science that considers it acceptable to be within a 2.6c tolerance, yet claims even a .5c upswing points to agw? What a laugh!

---
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.

---
Again, you reveal your IGNORANCE about SCIENCE.
Good science uses objective methods.
If not, it should not be published in reputable journals.
Some of the controversy in good science is about interpretation of results, which leads to alternative hypotheses for future research.

Feel free to criticize science you think is "bad", but you need to provide more than your ignorant opinions to be taken seriously.
.

---
WTF?
Dumping a general statement out of context wins you stupid points.
.

 

[PK1]

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

Deny is a Cult word. No real scientist calls skeptics a "DENIER!"

---
Real scientists usually IGNORE crap from IGNORANT non-scientists.
.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Deny is a Cult word. No real scientist calls skeptics a "DENIER!"

---
Real scientists usually IGNORE crap from IGNORANT non-scientists.
.

How would you know?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[
Again, you reveal your IGNORANCE about SCIENCE.
Good science uses objective methods.

Which requires what? Objective methods require objective scientists... to develop and apply them.

And here's the thing... when one's livelihood is dependent upon finding one conclusion... one is unlikely, to the point of being absolutely... subjective.

Now where one's 'methods' are designed to provide that subjective conclusion... one is not an objective scientist, applying objective methods.

.

.

.


But again... It's clear to me that you're doing the very best you can, and frankly, as an dumbass, there is NO WAY you could have known that.

 

[Muhammed]

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

There is no such thing, dumbass.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

That has all the logic and reason of 'Big Foot is real. If you deny it you are an idiot.'

But please, keep going with that kind of persuasiveness, you are doing great!

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Yep. An idiot.

He used the same kind of logic you did; unwarranted assertion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.
.

It is ironic to see someone using scientists to make an argument from authority when the very essence of science is to question all assumptions, everything we think we know.

You are not thinking in a scientific manner, but like a religious zealot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

Climate has ALWAYS changed!
Temperature record with CO2 levels for the last 600 million years

Last 10,000 years

Why Hansen Had To Corrupt The Temperature Record | Real Science

NASA GISS - Adjusting the Adjustments

As a simple exercise, I quickly revisited the everchanging Hansen adjustments, a topic commented on acidly by E.M. Smith (Chiefio) in many posts – also see his interesting comments in the thread at a guest post at Anthony‘s, a post which revisited the race between 1934 and 1998 – an issue first raised at Climate Audit in 2007 in connection with Hansen’s Y2K error.

As CA readers recall, Hansen’s Y2K error resulted in a reduction of US temperatures after 2000 relative to earlier values. The change from previous values is shown in red in the graphic below; the figure also shows (black) remarkable re-writing of past history since August 2007 – a rewriting of history that has increased the 2000-6 relative to the 1930s by about 0.3 deg C.

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.

Hansen's NASA GISS - cooling the past, warming the present

I ran a post yesterday, showing how the latest version of GISSTEMP had changed from using Hadley/Reynolds to ERSST for ocean temperatures, with the result that about 0.03C had been added to recent warming.

However, this is not the only change they have made to the historical temperature record in recent years. Climate4You, fortunately, archived the GISS data in May 2008. Comparing this dataset with today’s version, we can see that about 0.10C of warming, or more, has been added to temperatures in the last decade, compared to data up to about 1950.

Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

?FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.
.

Lol, the religious zealot mindset of the person arguing one must have faith in the authority of science is just too hilarious.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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

Deny is a Cult word. No real scientist calls skeptics a "DENIER!"

---
Real scientists usually IGNORE crap from IGNORANT non-scientists.
.

No, they do not as a great many scientific advancements were made by wealthy amateurs for centuries and even today said amateurs make frequent contributions to astronomy and mathematics.

what a real scientists does is he TESTS the theory and observes if the predicted results appear or do not. He does not engage in PREJUDICE.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Grant money talks loudly.

 

[mamooth]

Threads like this should be in the conspiracy theory folder, but denier cult raving is protected by a shield of political correctness. Deniers make much less sense than Antivaxxers or Birthers or 9/11 Truthers, yet they still don't get correctly classified as conspiracy theorists.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Threads like this should be in the conspiracy theory folder, but denier cult raving is protected by a shield of political correctness. Deniers make much less sense than Antivaxxers or Birthers or 9/11 Truthers, yet they don't get correctly classified as conspiracy theorists.

It is posts like this that really intrigue me.

Mamooth, you posture like you are some kind of rational person, more rational than most it would appear, but then you use irrational flawed arguments like these unwarranted assertions to simply slander those who disagree with you, instead of bringing facts in a web of reason and argument to support anything you have said.

You bring no facts, no reason, and you have no authority at all; you just walk up, shit your opinion as though it were gospel truth and think the rest of us are supposed to do what, just bend over and concede to your almighty superior wit and wisdom?

You are a congruence of ignorance, stupidity posturing as authority and unwarranted arrogance.

In short, take a hike with that bullshit and come back when you have something serious to say.

How about that, idiot?