Cooling The Past In The Faroes

[IanC]

another WTF is going on with temperature adjustments thread

the temperature record in 2003 for this paper on permafrost and other things. http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/NICOP/DVD/ICOP 2003 Permafrost/Pdf/Chapter_026.pdf

that sorta agrees with GISS v2 raw, except for some cooling in the far past.

but what happens in GISS v3? you guessed it, yet another temperature station has been adjusted to match 'expectations' rather than thermometer readings. gotta love how we finally learned how to read tea leaves, oops I mean thermometers in 2012. hahahahaha

 

[Billy_Bob]

We are finding many arbitrary changes to all records. They are being made without any published or credible reasoning. They are being done in the dark of night and no one is telling us why they are being made or why.

As you demonstrate here, by looking at previously published papers and data bases, it is relatively easy to expose the fraud being perpetuated today across the globe. Even some of the more rabid AGW supporters are in awe of the changes being made without reason and are now questioning if the data is now so corrupted that it is useless for scientific purposes.

These fools are pushing some who were their supporters off a cliff and now they are asking inconvenient questions that the government powers refuse to answer... Many scientists are waking up from their grant funding induced coma finding they have been useful idiots and it isn't setting well with some. I hope this trend continues and that it is not to little to late for us.

 

[westwall]

C'mon Ian. Does this really surprise you anymore? The corruption runs deep in the climatology world.

 

[mamooth]

Reference "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as to why nobody now pays even a bit of attention to this failed denier tactic.

Also, since the overall temperature adjustments have made the past look _warmer_ and thus the cooling look _smaller_, explain how that fits in with your conspiracy theories. The scientists could have just left the data raw and the warming would have looked even more severe. So why didn't they? Why did the scientists expend great effort adjusting the data to make the warming look _smaller_?

 

[westwall]

Reference "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" as to why nobody now pays even a bit of attention to this failed denier tactic.

Also, since the overall temperature adjustments have made the past look _warmer_ and thus the cooling look _smaller_, explain how that fits in with your conspiracy theories. The scientists could have just left the data raw and the warming would have looked even more severe. So why didn't they? Why did the scientists expend great effort adjusting the data to make the warming look _smaller_?

No, they have made the past temps look COOLER. Truly mammy, you can't even read a graph now? I thought you were an admiral or some such...

 

[mamooth]

No, the temperature adjustments make the global average of the past look warmer, and thus make the global average appear to be warming more slowly. Were you really unaware of that?

You're looking at a single station. If anyone ever pointed to single stations as evidence of global warming, your conspiracy theory might have legs. But people always point to the global average, and the adjustments cause the global average to show less warming. Therefore, your conspiracy theory makes no sense. It posits scientists going to great effort to adjust temperatures to make warming look _less_ severe.

If you're confused as to why you thought the opposite, I'll give you a hint. Oceans. Ocean surface temperatures make up the majority of the global average, and the adjustments have made past ocean temperatures look much warmer.

It would make no sense at all to expend vast efforts on a fraud to adjust past land temperatures one way if you're just going to adjust past ocean temperatures much more in the opposite direction. Hence, your conspiracy theory makes no sense.

 

[IanC]

No, the temperature adjustments make the global average of the past look warmer, and thus make the global average appear to be warming more slowly. Were you really unaware of that?

You're looking at a single station. If anyone ever pointed to single stations as evidence of global warming, your conspiracy theory might have legs. But people always point to the global average, and the adjustments cause the global average to show less warming. Therefore, your conspiracy theory makes no sense. It posits scientists going to great effort to adjust temperatures to make warming look _less_ severe.

If you're confused as to why you thought the opposite, I'll give you a hint. Oceans. Ocean surface temperatures make up the majority of the global average, and the adjustments have made past ocean temperatures look much warmer.

It would make no sense at all to expend vast efforts on a fraud to adjust past land temperatures one way if you're just going to adjust past ocean temperatures much more in the opposite direction. Hence, your conspiracy theory makes no sense.

hahahahaha. that excuse always reminds me of this scene of a Christmas classic from my childhood.



the measurement error in sea surface temperatures, especially before WWII, is huge because there were practically no readings. making up a new number for oceans is not the same thing as corrupting actual thermometer readings taken at specific land stations.

 

[mamooth]

That evasion has nothing to do with the fact that your conspiracy theory makes no sense. Whether the ocean adjustments are valid or not, they were made, and they make the overall warming look _smaller_. Hence, your conspiracy theory is nonsense.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is there a warmer out there that can read and understand simple graphs? Can we put an Ad on Craig's list for one?

Truly Catman -- Do those OP chart changes look like it made the past warmer to you?
Is that REALLY your claim?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Some times one must place the data in a form that even left wit idiots can see.. While this one is from the Paraguay mess it drives the point home about data point manipulations by the left.

Source

The same algorithm was used in manipulations of data in this OP. It is rather stunning to see them take great risks at exposing themselves in doing it so wide spread. But then Stupid is as Stupid does...

The same data point adjustments.. and its happening globally. It appears that the Communist UN folks are doing a Hail Mary end run, in the hopes of getting the west to bow to their demands and give up their sovereignty and their rights. Using the Pope as well, to give credibility to the lie.

 

[mamooth]

Billy, maybe you can answer. Since the global adjustments make the global warming look smaller, why do all deniers keep lying by claiming the exact opposite?

You can't still cling to any hope that anyone believes your lies. So why tell them? Are they some kind of cult ritual, where all the true believers are expected to chant the cult mantras in unison?

 

[mamooth]

Is there a warmer out there that can read and understand simple graphs? Can we put an Ad on Craig's list for one?

I almost feel bad for debunking your conspiracy theory here, given that at one time you were rational.

Truly Catman -- Do those OP chart changes look like it made the past warmer to you?
Is that REALLY your claim?

As your cult expends such effort to keep you ignorant, I'll have to help you out.

Oceans. 70% of the earth's surface. Ocean surface temperatures make up the majority of the global temperature average. Past ocean surface temperatures have been adjusted _upwards_ by a lot, which makes the past global average look warmer, which makes the current warming look smaller.

Now, why would scientists supposedly expend great effort to adjust land temperatures in a fraudulent manner, and then spin about and adjust ocean temperatures even more the other way, totally nullifying all that fraud on the land temperatures? That conspiracy theory makes no sense.

However, the theory "the scientists are honest" explains the observed data perfectly.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, maybe you can answer. Since the global adjustments make the global warming look smaller, why do all deniers keep lying by claiming the exact opposite?

You can't still cling to any hope that anyone believes your lies. So why tell them? Are they some kind of cult ritual, where all the true believers are expected to chant the cult mantras in unison?

Your warming is not happening and hasn't been for over 18 years... get over yourself.. Even the Satellite measurements show it cooling now and has been since 2002. The only thing warming up are the ever upward adjustments of the IPCC, NOAA, and GISS..

Both terrestrial data sets show that MMGW does not exist. Thinking that man can do more than influence short term changes in a system that is chaotic and has a mass billions of times larger than man, is a fools folly. In as little as 100 years of an ELE, mans footprint wont be seen.

The earth looked at us and only laughed at us. Man's arrogance is astounding and when the earth decides to cool off there wont be a dam thing anyone can do to stop it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nothing in this forum has changed much in months. Except for fact that the few warmers we have have started to hallucinate and believe that past surface temps have largely been adjusted up. #GroundHogDay

 

[mamooth]

Poor flac. The reality -- that for years, he's let himself be manipulated and played for a fool by his masters -- is too painful for him to deal with, so he's gone into full blown denial mode.

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger! It must be a fraud!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get .

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And the #1 denier conspiracy theory collapses.

 

[flacaltenn]

Poor flac. The reality -- that for years, he's let himself be manipulated and played for a fool by his masters -- is too painful for him to deal with, so he's gone into full blown denial mode.

The land surface temperature adjustments. Oh noes! Those adjustments make the historical warming look bigger! It must be a fraud!

Next, the sea surface temperature adjustments. Wait ... those adjustments make the historical warming look ... smaller?

Since the oceans are 70% of the earth's surface, when we combine the two, we get .

So, all the adjustments across the whole earth combine to make the historical warming look _smaller_. And the #1 denier conspiracy theory collapses.

Well that's SOME progress. On SOME datasets. You've gone from never seeing an adjusted temperature to showing us some adjustments to make a point.

But here's the deal.. The land data for 1900 is FAR more reliable than sea data, and it is consistently revised DOWN in almost every data set. Just imagine how much different that "merged" adjusted graph would look if they hadn't convieniently found a 0.2" LOWER land reading for the early 20th Century. Would really ruin the scariness factor of that curve for public consumption wouldn't it?

 

[mamooth]

But here's the deal.. The land data for 1900 is FAR more reliable than sea data, and it is consistently revised DOWN in almost every data set.

And if scientists ever pointed to a temperature average that only included land data, that would matter, and your conspiracy theory could survive. But, that's not the case. Scientists always point to the combined average. That means scientists deliberately apply adjustments -- going through all that effort, and opening themselves up to charges of tampering -- all to make the total warming look less severe.

You conspiracy theory posits that scientists apply adjustments to make warming look more severe. Since the data directly contradicts your conspiracy theory, your conspiracy theory is disproved. If scientists wanted to make warming look more severe, they could simply do nothing.

 

[jc456]

But here's the deal.. The land data for 1900 is FAR more reliable than sea data, and it is consistently revised DOWN in almost every data set.

And if scientists ever pointed to a temperature average that only included land data, that would matter, and your conspiracy theory could survive. But, that's not the case. Scientists always point to the combined average. That means scientists deliberately apply adjustments -- going through all that effort, and opening themselves up to charges of tampering -- all to make the total warming look less severe.

You conspiracy theory posits that scientists apply adjustments to make warming look more severe. Since the data directly contradicts your conspiracy theory, your conspiracy theory is disproved. If scientists wanted to make warming look more severe, they could simply do nothing.

BTW, have you provided any temperature graphs yet? I believe Frank requested them sometime in the past and sometime in the current and most likely in the future since you haven't got them.

 

[mamooth]

BTW, have you provided any temperature graphs yet?

Well, yes. Post 15, for example.

I believe Frank requested them sometime in the past and sometime in the current and most likely in the future since you haven't got them.

Well, that certainly narrows it down.

So, what does that extremely vague request have to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[eagle1462010]

BUMP