Doctored Data, Not U.S. Temperatures, Set a Record This Year

[flacaltenn]

And who EXACTLY IS Roy Spencer you MORON???

ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION....

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

And who EXACTLY IS Roy Spencer you MORON???

ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION....

It doesn't matter WHO he is. What matters is whether the research has been subjected to PEER REVIEW or not. BLOGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.

 

[demiurge]

It doesn't matter WHO he is. What matters is whether the research has been subjected to PEER REVIEW or not. BLOGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.

Peer review doesn't mean the hypothesis is valid. It just means they didn't detect any systemic flaws.

Its also subject to system capture - that was one of the big things the climategate emails showed, that particular group of scientists attempt to capture the blogs and put only their own reviewers in position.

Finally, peer review rarely check data. Its not designed to detect fraud.

This is one of the major reasons why so many peer reviewed studies are later retracted.

The Journal Nature in 2011 published a statistical analysis that showed peer reviewed papers were being retracted at TEN TIMES the rate of 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/s...alls-for-reform.html?_r=2&hpw=&pagewanted=all

Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet:
The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

So its good there is some check, and far better than just a blog, I concur. But it doesn't mean anything at all about whether or not the information in the paper is correct, and there's more and more indications that politics is gaming the system when it comes to peer review.

 

[flacaltenn]

And who EXACTLY IS Roy Spencer you MORON???

ANSWER THE FREAKIN' QUESTION....

It doesn't matter WHO he is. What matters is whether the research has been subjected to PEER REVIEW or not. BLOGS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PEER REVIEW.

All the methods described in my post HAVE been peer reviewed. And the comparison data is taken DIRECTLY from their official sources. You just don't want to discuss the topic or be shown the evidence of doctoring the data..

Go ahead and indict "the blog" and all means of electronic communications btw.. It's the engine of scientific discussion and dissemination. But PLEASE answer the question..

Does that 0.4degC jump in the "official" temp records for 96--98 look NORMAL to you? Was there 40 years of warming in that 2 year interval?

No answer -- I'm certain of it...

 

[bobgnote]

Does this look "doctored," by somebody, besides PhDs?

Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.

The current observed value of the ratio of daily record high maximum temperatures to record low minimum temperatures averaged across the U.S. is about two to one. This is because records that were declining uniformly earlier in the 20th century following a decay proportional to 1/n (n being the number of years since the beginning of record keeping) have been declining less slowly for record highs than record lows since the late 1970s. Model simulations of U.S. 20th century climate show a greater ratio of about four to one due to more uniform warming across the U.S. than in observations. Following an A1B emission scenario for the 21st century, the U.S. ratio of record high maximum to record low minimum temperatures is projected to continue to increase, with ratios of about 20 to 1 by mid-century, and roughly 50 to 1 by the end of the century.

-------------------------

The good doctorate-credentialed fellows, who released this report projected record highs will increase, relative to record lows, by a ratio of 50-1, by the end of the century.

We know you are too queer to debate, Fatass. Why don't you conveniently link to Dr.Spencer's page and paste any text, which you wish to discuss? BECAUSE YOU DON'T DISCUSS. You rant, out of your asshole, and somehow type your shit, at USMB.

 

[skookerasbil]

Does this look "doctored," by somebody, besides PhDs?

Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.

The current observed value of the ratio of daily record high maximum temperatures to record low minimum temperatures averaged across the U.S. is about two to one. This is because records that were declining uniformly earlier in the 20th century following a decay proportional to 1/n (n being the number of years since the beginning of record keeping) have been declining less slowly for record highs than record lows since the late 1970s. Model simulations of U.S. 20th century climate show a greater ratio of about four to one due to more uniform warming across the U.S. than in observations. Following an A1B emission scenario for the 21st century, the U.S. ratio of record high maximum to record low minimum temperatures is projected to continue to increase, with ratios of about 20 to 1 by mid-century, and roughly 50 to 1 by the end of the century.

-------------------------

The good doctorate-credentialed fellows, who released this report projected record highs will increase, relative to record lows, by a ratio of 50-1, by the end of the century.

We know you are too queer to debate, Fatass. Why don't you conveniently link to Dr.Spencer's page and paste any text, which you wish to discuss? BECAUSE YOU DON'T DISCUSS. You rant, out of your asshole, and somehow type your shit, at USMB.

LMAO........hey...........wirebender........West...........


b a t t e r u p

 

[Annie]

Sure. He's a BS blogger from the "Heartland Institute". Pure Pubcrappe. TY

The article is from Forbes magazine, moron.

And yet, the author of the op-ed in Forbes is in fact a blogger from "The Heartland Institute".

That's all you have to add? Seriously?

What if it were Brookings or The Roosevelt Institution? Then there could be 'no probleims?' It's all about the leanings of the board, not their research?

 

[bobgnote]

Sucksassandballs must think somebody is going to help his "team."

Sometimes your buddies must get tired of being on the zombie-"team," sucksassandballs. Maybe you should have been a plant, or even better, a farmer. But no. You are a zombie-idiot.