Changing The Data to Get Climate Change

[jc456]

Interesting isn't it that the raw ground measurement data agrees with the satellites but the heavily massaged data doesn't....and you call that data correct.

The satellite data is twiddled, fudged, massaged and twisted far more than the surface data. Only the most desperate cultists still pretend otherwise.

Normal people, if they wanted to see surface temperatures, they'd use the directly measured surface temperatures. Deniers, they go with satellites that don't even measure surface temperatures, and which don't measure temperature directly at all. It's a favorite tactic of pseudoscience cranks to throw out good clear data in favor of the bad fuzzy data, and that's the only tactic deniers have left now.

And given that the temperature adjustments to the raw data make the current warming look _smaller_, it's particularly dishonest of the deniers to put forth a conspiracy theory that states the exact opposite of reality. Yet nearly every single one of them still proudly tells that blatant lie. The cult has commanded them to lie, so they do it, period.

Flipping a coin would be more accurate then the data we have on ocean temperatures.

Now why don't you just wear a big sign saying "I am stupid". What you are doing is denying huge amounts of research and measurements done by scientists of all nations all over the world. And doing so without any research on your part into their methods or findings. You are a willfully ignorant ass, and proving it every day.

hey that's simple, give us the raw data sets and let's see what they're actually doing. Why are they afraid to simply show the raw data? What is it they think is necessary on past records, of which they have no clue on?

Changing data, so you are admitting biased data is used for the temperature reports. Thanks for finally admitting that the data is falsified.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Altered data fed through flawed computer models.

Yeah, that's real science

 

[easyt65]

"So, how does that affect the present?"

They can't even accurately predict what the weather is going to be like NEXT WEEK; yet they claim to know what is going to happen in the next 100 years. The things and thesis they have already published has had to be modified, along with the UN-supporting data, to make it appear as if their failures have been true or justified.

A friend of mine has this wooden donkey that has a tail made of cloth sitting on his back deck. It's a 'weather mule' - when the tail is wet, it means it's raining; when the tail is dry it means it is sunny / no rain; when the tail is sideways it means it's windy, etc...

THAT mule has been more accurate the last few years than all the global Warming Scientist jackasses put together!

 

[mamooth]

so rocks, I asked you a question earlier to which you never replied, are the current data sets biased? yes or no? I'm still waiting for your answer.

jc, everyone on all sides mostly ignores you because you just babble. I rarely even read your nonsense, because I've learned the payoff isn't worth the effort of trying to decipher your stream-of-consciousness rambling.

If you want to stop being ignored by everyone, then try thinking before you type.

 

[jc456]

Sooo 11 years of temperature reading buoys is accurate statistical, to predict a trend of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old in your little mind?

Of course not. If you want to put forth that kook theory like that, you'll have to justify it.

By the way, pretending we believe in your kook nonsense isn't honest. If you can't debate what we say, then admit it, instead of making up crazy stories about what we supposedly believe.

Also, stop pretending the ocean temperature record is only 11 years old. Get in tough with reality.

Well there are old records, and we know adjustments to those old data sets were made. They admit it. What is it you can't grasp? Oh yeah, that CO2 is logarithmic and that after 120 PPM of CO2 the rate of IR absorption drops greatly to very little if any. Koch 1901 experiment proved it. You still haven't debunked that one. Still today you manufacture data sets and claim it as actual. Funny shit friend, funny shit.

 

[mamooth]

They can't even accurately predict what the weather is going to be like NEXT WEEK; yet they claim to know what is going to happen in the next 100 years.

Confusing climate and weather. You're just going down the list of denier fallacies.

The things and thesis they have already published has had to be modified, along with the UN-supporting data, to make it appear as if their failures have been true or justified.

And yet another fabricated conspiracy fable on your part. Keep 'em coming. It's not like you're capable of anything else.

 

[jc456]

so rocks, I asked you a question earlier to which you never replied, are the current data sets biased? yes or no? I'm still waiting for your answer.

jc, everyone on all sides mostly ignores you because you just babble. I rarely even read your nonsense, because I've learned the payoff isn't worth the effort of trying to decipher your stream-of-consciousness rambling.

If you want to stop being ignored by everyone, then try thinking before you type.

dude/dudette, quit your crying already, just because you don't back your claims with any actual science isn't my fault. Again, changing and falsifying data sets is only for one reason, and that is to make the models look good. HILARIOUS. You buy into too, maybe it is you who ought to think before typing.

BTW, why are you afraid of me and my ideas? You hate failure do ya? hahahahahahahaahahahahaha fk off fk.

 

[Old Rocks]

"So, how does that affect the present?"

They can't even accurately predict what the weather is going to be like NEXT WEEK; yet they claim to know what is going to happen in the next 100 years. The things and thesis they have already published has had to be modified, along with the UN-supporting data, to make it appear as if their failures have been true or justified.

A friend of mine has this wooden donkey that has a tail made of cloth sitting on his back deck. It's a 'weather mule' - when the tail is wet, it means it's raining; when the tail is dry it means it is sunny / no rain; when the tail is sideways it means it's windy, etc...

THAT mule has been more accurate the last few years than all the global Warming Scientist jackasses put together!

By God, I do believe that jackass has the same amount of brains that you do. So, your premise is that them thar pointy headed scientists don't know nothin' a'tall. Very typical of the ignorant rightwingnuts on this board.

 

[jc456]

"So, how does that affect the present?"

They can't even accurately predict what the weather is going to be like NEXT WEEK; yet they claim to know what is going to happen in the next 100 years. The things and thesis they have already published has had to be modified, along with the UN-supporting data, to make it appear as if their failures have been true or justified.

A friend of mine has this wooden donkey that has a tail made of cloth sitting on his back deck. It's a 'weather mule' - when the tail is wet, it means it's raining; when the tail is dry it means it is sunny / no rain; when the tail is sideways it means it's windy, etc...

THAT mule has been more accurate the last few years than all the global Warming Scientist jackasses put together!

By God, I do believe that jackass has the same amount of brains that you do. So, your premise is that them thar pointy headed scientists don't know nothin' a'tall. Very typical of the ignorant rightwingnuts on this board.

just post up the raw data sets, those with no adjustments, the biased set can stay in the drawer. Let's see real data. You got it? Billy has posted up what he's found many different times. Still waiting on just the raw data graphs. ohhhhhh, are you afraid of the little ole data sets that are the real thing? hahahahaahhahahahahaha

 

[Kosh]

Climate on this planet was changing long before the existence of Humans..

 

[jc456]

Climate on this planet was changing long before the existence of Humans..

no!! no way. can't be. you're pulling my leg.

 

[Kosh]

Climate on this planet was changing long before the existence of Humans..

no!! no way. can't be. you're pulling my leg.

Well there are a few on this board that promote that AGW killed off the dinosaurs..

 

[jc456]

Climate on this planet was changing long before the existence of Humans..

no!! no way. can't be. you're pulling my leg.

Well there are a few on this board that promote that AGW killed off the dinosaurs..

I know I was having fun with it.

 

[SSDD]

The satellite data is twiddled, fudged, massaged and twisted far more than the surface data. Only the most desperate cultists still pretend otherwise.

And yet, the raw ground data agrees with it. Interesting, isn't it?

 

[edthecynic]

The satellite data is twiddled, fudged, massaged and twisted far more than the surface data. Only the most desperate cultists still pretend otherwise.

And yet, the raw ground data agrees with it. Interesting, isn't it?

Not any more it doesn't. Not since the deniers at UAH made a whole new computer model v6.0 to fudge the data. It hasn't matched since v5.2

 

[mamooth]

Spencer retroactively adjusted all his data. His v6.0 shows much less warming than his older version. Hence, by denier standards, Spencer is a fraud.

Well, that would be the case, if deniers weren't flagrant partisan hacks. But since they are, the denier policy is that all new retroactive adjustments to raw data are wonderful when they match denier politics, but total fraud if they don't.

In contrast, we here on the rational side are totally consistent, as we don't call anybody a fraud.

This March 2015 paper explains where Spencer messed up his processing. He does his diurnal drift corrections wrong. Once that is fixed, the satellite data matches the surface data well.

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies (Po-Chedley et al 2015)

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[jc456]

Spencer retroactively adjusted all his data. His v6.0 shows much less warming than his older version. Hence, by denier standards, Spencer is a fraud.

Well, that would be the case, if deniers weren't flagrant partisan hacks. But since they are, the denier policy is that all new retroactive adjustments to raw data are wonderful when they match denier politics, but total fraud if they don't.

In contrast, we here on the rational side are totally consistent, as we don't call anybody a fraud.

This March 2015 paper explains where Spencer messed up his processing. He does his diurnal drift corrections wrong. Once that is fixed, the satellite data matches the surface data well.

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies (Po-Chedley et al 2015)

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

well for this skeptic poster boy, I don't want any adjustments, so you speak about something again that isn't true at all. Isn't true at all. Surprised? Nope!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Spencer retroactively adjusted all his data. His v6.0 shows much less warming than his older version. Hence, by denier standards, Spencer is a fraud.

Well, that would be the case, if deniers weren't flagrant partisan hacks. But since they are, the denier policy is that all new retroactive adjustments to raw data are wonderful when they match denier politics, but total fraud if they don't.

In contrast, we here on the rational side are totally consistent, as we don't call anybody a fraud.

This March 2015 paper explains where Spencer messed up his processing. He does his diurnal drift corrections wrong. Once that is fixed, the satellite data matches the surface data well.

Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies (Po-Chedley et al 2015)

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Again the hairball retard cant cough up a hairball right.. Dr. Spencer made changes to Diurnal shift patters correcting for the flight of the satellite and timing of of readings... HE made necessary adjustments to a KNOWN PROBLEM!

Unlike your massive adjustments to all ground data Dr Spencer has legitimate reasons and a second independent system called US-CRN to verify the corrections were accurate. That same system shows your changes to the HCN sites is not only unneeded but without merit scientifically.

 

[flacaltenn]

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently published a study in the journal Science that made “adjustments” to global temperature data. The study was conducted in order to refute the notion that there has been any pause in global warming.

That's a lie! As always from the Right!

The study was conducted because ocean temps are now measured with buoys which are more accurate and when ships and buoys took measurements in the same locations, the ship measurements were consistently off. So a correction factor was derived from the overlapping data sets to correct for the ship measured errors.

In the past when there was a difference between ground measurements and satellite measurements, the ground measurements proved to be correct.

Oh HELL No.. This one paper went BACKWARDS from ocean buoy measurements to recreate the old method of measuring water temperature in ship's intake channels.. And Karl adjusted the BUOY data to homogenize with the artificially elevated OLDER methods..

Anyways. Only thing that matters is the hysteria is in full retreat. As witnessed by all the PREDICTED modeling over the past 20 years. Even if Karl WAS correct (and there's little chance of that) --- it would put the actual trend in the 2.5th percentile of the Modeling results.

 

[edthecynic]

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently published a study in the journal Science that made “adjustments” to global temperature data. The study was conducted in order to refute the notion that there has been any pause in global warming.

That's a lie! As always from the Right!

The study was conducted because ocean temps are now measured with buoys which are more accurate and when ships and buoys took measurements in the same locations, the ship measurements were consistently off. So a correction factor was derived from the overlapping data sets to correct for the ship measured errors.

In the past when there was a difference between ground measurements and satellite measurements, the ground measurements proved to be correct.

Oh HELL No.. This one paper went BACKWARDS from ocean buoy measurements to recreate the old method of measuring water temperature in ship's intake channels.. And Karl adjusted the BUOY data to homogenize with the artificially elevated OLDER methods..

Anyways. Only thing that matters is the hysteria is in full retreat. As witnessed by all the PREDICTED modeling over the past 20 years. Even if Karl WAS correct (and there's little chance of that) --- it would put the actual trend in the 2.5th percentile of the Modeling results.

Not quite.

Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming.

Since the release of the IPCC report, NOAA scientists have made significant improvements in the calculation of trends and now use a global surface temperature record that includes the most recent two years of data, 2013 and 2014--the hottest year on record. The calculations also use improved versions of both sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature datasets. One of the most substantial improvements is a correction that accounts for the difference in data collected from buoys and ship-based data.


(Credit: NOAA)

Prior to the mid-1970s, ships were the predominant way to measure sea surface temperatures, and since then buoys have been used in increasing numbers. Compared to ships, buoys provide measurements of significantly greater accuracy. "In regards to sea surface temperature, scientists have shown that across the board, data collected from buoys are cooler than ship-based data," said Dr. Thomas C. Peterson, principal scientist at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and one of the study's authors. "In order to accurately compare ship measurements and buoy measurements over the long-term, they need to be compatible. Scientists have developed a method to correct the difference between ship and buoy measurements, and we are using this in our trend analysis."

In addition, more detailed information has been obtained regarding each ship's observation method. This information was also used to provide improved corrections for changes in the mix of observing methods.

New analyses with these data demonstrate that incomplete spatial coverage also led to underestimates of the true global temperature change previously reported in the 2013 IPCC report. The integration of dozens of data sets has improved spatial coverage over many areas, including the Arctic, where temperatures have been rapidly increasing in recent decades. For example, the release of the International Surface Temperature Initiative databank, integrated with NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily dataset and forty additional historical data sources, has more than doubled the number of weather stations available for analysis.

Lastly, the incorporation of additional years of data, 2013 and 2014, with 2014 being the warmest year on record, has had a notable impact on the temperature assessment. As stated by the IPCC, the "hiatus" period 1998-2012 is short and began with an unusually warm El Niño year. However, over the full period of record, from 1880 to present, the newly calculated warming trend is not substantially different than reported previously (0.68°C / Century (new) vs 0.65°C / Century (old)), reinforcing that the new corrections mainly have in impact in recent decades.