Duke Physicists Call Out NASA and NOAA's Adjustments as improbable..

[Billy_Bob]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

The two data sets should not be diverging, period, unless everything we understand about atmospheric thermal dynamics is wrong. That is, I will add my “opinion” to Werner’s and point out that it is based on simple atmospheric physics taught in any relevant textbook.

And he even goes one to explain why even if it is simply confirmation bias it too is fraud as they should have been prepared to counter thier own personal biases.

The bias doesn’t even have to be deliberate in the sense of people going “Mwahahahaha, I’m going to fool the world with this deliberate misrepresentation of the data”. Sadly, there is overwhelming evidence that confirmation bias doesn’t require anything like deliberate dishonesty. All it requires is a failure in applying double blind, placebo controlled reasoning in measurements. Ask any physician or medical researcher. It is almost impossible for the human mind not to select data in ways that confirm our biases if we don’t actively defeat it.

Yet as this article shows the adjustment are not random, they are always in one direction, and they always conform to propping up the biases. This means they are not scientific, they are contrived, even if they were somehow 'justified'

So even like the excellent discussion on Curry’s blog where each individual change made by USHCN can be justified in some way or another which pointed out — correctly, I believe — that the adjustments were made in a kind of good faith, that is not sufficient evidence that they are not made without bias towards a specific conclusion that might end up with correction error greater than the total error that would be made with no correction at all.

I would not be so forgiving as these gentlemen are. To have so many scientists remain blinded and refuse to look at their own internal biases leads me to believe they have made these changes with malice and forethought. If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

 

[depotoo]

Let's see how the agw crowds responds to this. My bet? They attempt to find every tiny tidbit they can to discredit these scientists. I imagine it won't be long...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

Anthony Watts and Robert Brown are Liars

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment. First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs. Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist. Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character & competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick. This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect. Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere. What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

There is no stellar physics textbook on the planet that talks about or models the greenhouse effect being in stellar (star) atmospheres. The funny thing is, is that it should be, given Robert Brown’s perspective and the general mechanics of the greenhouse effect…but it isn’t. Someone could start up a whole new field of research and get funded for life by proposing research into the greenhouse effect in stellar atmospheres. No one has, and the concept doesn’t exist. (And to be sure, for those who know, line-blanketing is not the greenhouse effect either! Line-blanketing does not increase the temperature of the core, of the fusion reactions in the core – it only slightly modulates [a few percent] the photospheric temperature profile.)

So Robert Brown is either a liar, or he made a very stupid mistake in his claim, and I will take either claim to court if he wants to make a point of my public accusation of him. This is just yet another example of “greenhouse effect by analogy” that the whole concept exists by. There is no direct physics or experiments that actually demonstrate a greenhouse effect – all that exists are analogies, that are actually never physically meaningful, instead of the real thing.

 

[JoeMoma]

Let's see how the agw crowds responds to this. My bet? They attempt to find every tiny tidbit they can to discredit these scientists. I imagine it won't be long...

3 min.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Let's see how the agw crowds responds to this. My bet? They attempt to find every tiny tidbit they can to discredit these scientists. I imagine it won't be long...

what scientist ? and aren't you all the gang that says"all scientists are corrupt except those working for the Fossil fuel Industry" to discredit the consensus ...LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[depotoo]

Was that a record?

Let's see how the agw crowds responds to this. My bet? They attempt to find every tiny tidbit they can to discredit these scientists. I imagine it won't be long...

3 min.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Science is about challenging the norm and working on fitting the theories with reality...More funding helps in doing such.

If there's a strong enough counter-argument then that will become the new respected theory.

 

[flacaltenn]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

Anthony Watts and Robert Brown are Liars

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment. First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs. Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist. Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character & competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick. This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect. Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere. What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

There is no stellar physics textbook on the planet that talks about or models the greenhouse effect being in stellar (star) atmospheres. The funny thing is, is that it should be, given Robert Brown’s perspective and the general mechanics of the greenhouse effect…but it isn’t. Someone could start up a whole new field of research and get funded for life by proposing research into the greenhouse effect in stellar atmospheres. No one has, and the concept doesn’t exist. (And to be sure, for those who know, line-blanketing is not the greenhouse effect either! Line-blanketing does not increase the temperature of the core, of the fusion reactions in the core – it only slightly modulates [a few percent] the photospheric temperature profile.)

So Robert Brown is either a liar, or he made a very stupid mistake in his claim, and I will take either claim to court if he wants to make a point of my public accusation of him. This is just yet another example of “greenhouse effect by analogy” that the whole concept exists by. There is no direct physics or experiments that actually demonstrate a greenhouse effect – all that exists are analogies, that are actually never physically meaningful, instead of the real thing.

You are fingering the wrong idiot here. What you found is blog by some jerk QUESTIONING the GreenHouse theory that most all warmers and skeptics alike ACCEPT.. And Dr. Brown is simply CORRECT in all his observations that DEFEND the GH theory.

You are not really suited to impeaching sources if you don't understand the arguments..

 

[flacaltenn]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

The two data sets should not be diverging, period, unless everything we understand about atmospheric thermal dynamics is wrong. That is, I will add my “opinion” to Werner’s and point out that it is based on simple atmospheric physics taught in any relevant textbook.

And he even goes one to explain why even if it is simply confirmation bias it too is fraud as they should have been prepared to counter thier own personal biases.

The bias doesn’t even have to be deliberate in the sense of people going “Mwahahahaha, I’m going to fool the world with this deliberate misrepresentation of the data”. Sadly, there is overwhelming evidence that confirmation bias doesn’t require anything like deliberate dishonesty. All it requires is a failure in applying double blind, placebo controlled reasoning in measurements. Ask any physician or medical researcher. It is almost impossible for the human mind not to select data in ways that confirm our biases if we don’t actively defeat it.

Yet as this article shows the adjustment are not random, they are always in one direction, and they always conform to propping up the biases. This means they are not scientific, they are contrived, even if they were somehow 'justified'

So even like the excellent discussion on Curry’s blog where each individual change made by USHCN can be justified in some way or another which pointed out — correctly, I believe — that the adjustments were made in a kind of good faith, that is not sufficient evidence that they are not made without bias towards a specific conclusion that might end up with correction error greater than the total error that would be made with no correction at all.

I would not be so forgiving as these gentlemen are. To have so many scientists remain blinded and refuse to look at their own internal biases leads me to believe they have made these changes with malice and forethought. If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

His analysis is now bookmarked. It is a stinging criticism of the undocumented adjustments that are causing divergence between the cooked data sets and between them as a group and the satellite data. If this continues, there WILL BE an ugly showdown. And the ONLY REASON it continues is to be able to boost the data just enough to make the news cycle about the HOTTEST month or year on record.. It's desperation. And it will not stand in the long run.

Not surprising.. There are almost NO data sets from the Federal Govt that have NOT been massaged to provide the optimal political spin and impact. When they do it to ObamaCare "enrollment" or costs or to the employment figures or to immigration figures they are not contaminating scientific process and the experts just shrug it off. But in hard physical science, there are enough objective folks with principles to call them out...

 

[Billy_Bob]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

Anthony Watts and Robert Brown are Liars

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment. First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs. Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist. Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character & competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick. This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect. Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere. What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

There is no stellar physics textbook on the planet that talks about or models the greenhouse effect being in stellar (star) atmospheres. The funny thing is, is that it should be, given Robert Brown’s perspective and the general mechanics of the greenhouse effect…but it isn’t. Someone could start up a whole new field of research and get funded for life by proposing research into the greenhouse effect in stellar atmospheres. No one has, and the concept doesn’t exist. (And to be sure, for those who know, line-blanketing is not the greenhouse effect either! Line-blanketing does not increase the temperature of the core, of the fusion reactions in the core – it only slightly modulates [a few percent] the photospheric temperature profile.)

So Robert Brown is either a liar, or he made a very stupid mistake in his claim, and I will take either claim to court if he wants to make a point of my public accusation of him. This is just yet another example of “greenhouse effect by analogy” that the whole concept exists by. There is no direct physics or experiments that actually demonstrate a greenhouse effect – all that exists are analogies, that are actually never physically meaningful, instead of the real thing.

You found a no name blog and a bunch of straw men that will burn brightly.

Please show where Dr. Brown was wrong on any of his points. He backed up his position with facts and you back up yours with adhominem attacks and conjecture. YOU LOSE! Further more, you simply dont know what the argument is about, let alone what his science confirms. Come back when you get a clue.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Clearly not a thread about Republicans. Don't make it about Republicans.
If you don't like the topic -- pick another forum please..

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

Anthony Watts and Robert Brown are Liars

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment. First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs. Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist. Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character & competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick. This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect. Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere. What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

There is no stellar physics textbook on the planet that talks about or models the greenhouse effect being in stellar (star) atmospheres. The funny thing is, is that it should be, given Robert Brown’s perspective and the general mechanics of the greenhouse effect…but it isn’t. Someone could start up a whole new field of research and get funded for life by proposing research into the greenhouse effect in stellar atmospheres. No one has, and the concept doesn’t exist. (And to be sure, for those who know, line-blanketing is not the greenhouse effect either! Line-blanketing does not increase the temperature of the core, of the fusion reactions in the core – it only slightly modulates [a few percent] the photospheric temperature profile.)

So Robert Brown is either a liar, or he made a very stupid mistake in his claim, and I will take either claim to court if he wants to make a point of my public accusation of him. This is just yet another example of “greenhouse effect by analogy” that the whole concept exists by. There is no direct physics or experiments that actually demonstrate a greenhouse effect – all that exists are analogies, that are actually never physically meaningful, instead of the real thing.

You are fingering the wrong idiot here. What you found is blog by some jerk QUESTIONING the GreenHouse theory that most all warmers and skeptics alike ACCEPT.. And Dr. Brown is simply CORRECT in all his observations that DEFEND the GH theory.

You are not really suited to impeaching sources if you don't understand the arguments..

Only you and the scientist paid for by the fossil fuel Industry are honest and real scientist ...the rest are sell out ...I know your spiel

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

NASA and NOAA's Problematic Adjustments And Divergences..


Well this is going to leave a huge mark... Duke Physicist Robert Brown pulls no punches when it comes to calling out fraud in our government folks, intentional or not..

Anthony Watts and Robert Brown are Liars

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment. First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs. Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist. Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character & competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick. This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect. Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere. What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

There is no stellar physics textbook on the planet that talks about or models the greenhouse effect being in stellar (star) atmospheres. The funny thing is, is that it should be, given Robert Brown’s perspective and the general mechanics of the greenhouse effect…but it isn’t. Someone could start up a whole new field of research and get funded for life by proposing research into the greenhouse effect in stellar atmospheres. No one has, and the concept doesn’t exist. (And to be sure, for those who know, line-blanketing is not the greenhouse effect either! Line-blanketing does not increase the temperature of the core, of the fusion reactions in the core – it only slightly modulates [a few percent] the photospheric temperature profile.)

So Robert Brown is either a liar, or he made a very stupid mistake in his claim, and I will take either claim to court if he wants to make a point of my public accusation of him. This is just yet another example of “greenhouse effect by analogy” that the whole concept exists by. There is no direct physics or experiments that actually demonstrate a greenhouse effect – all that exists are analogies, that are actually never physically meaningful, instead of the real thing.

You found a no name blog and a bunch of straw men that will burn brightly.

Please show where Dr. Brown was wrong on any of his points. He backed up his position with facts and you back up yours with adhominem attacks and conjecture. YOU LOSE! Further more, you simply dont know what the argument is about, let alone what his science confirms. Come back when you get a clue.

Sure as soon as you show that the preponderance of Climate Scientist are wrong and you prove they are corrupt money seekers. Show a credible source that proves NOAA NASA the UK and Japanese Weather agency wrong and also the Pentagon...when you come up with sources that outweigh those sources then I'll come up with more ...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Isn't posting from whatsupwiththat kind of like posting from Skeptical science?

I am skeptical and I do believe the latest Karl 2015 probably made some huge assumptions, but the giss has always shaded in wide areas so I don't think it is very big. I say this simply because the data we do have for the arctic and antarctic it has shown that the warming has been far larger then earlier assumed.

Karl 2015 is an attempt at guesstimating how much warming has happened if we could cover the entire planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are not really suited to impeaching sources if you don't understand the arguments..

Only you and the scientist paid for by the fossil fuel Industry are honest and real scientist ...the rest are sell out ...I know your spiel

TyroneW -- Clearly feel sorry that you were so punked by this idiot Climate Denier with a blog beating up on Dr Brown.

NOTHING he quoted from this man was wrong. In case you DOUBT you made an error here, I suggest you read some of the incredibly ridiculous shit this guy tries to pass off to refute Climate Change on said blog..

About Climate of Sophistry Climate of Sophistry

Next time --- you could ask someone to explain it -- before you hurl it as a weapon... This "science thingy" is not as easy as calling me a fuel shill is it??

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You are not really suited to impeaching sources if you don't understand the arguments..

Only you and the scientist paid for by the fossil fuel Industry are honest and real scientist ...the rest are sell out ...I know your spiel

TyroneW -- Clearly feel sorry that you were so punked by this idiot Climate Denier with a blog beating up on Dr Brown.

NOTHING he quoted from this man was wrong. In case you DOUBT you made an error here, I suggest you read some of the incredibly ridiculous shit this guy tries to pass off to refute Climate Change on said blog..

About Climate of Sophistry Climate of Sophistry

Next time --- you could ask someone to explain it -- before you hurl it as a weapon... This "science thingy" is not as easy as calling me a fuel shill is it??

I understand that only you and a handful of others have the knowledge the integrity that helps you all stand tall against the preponderance of Scientist and Meteorological agencies that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you all are tops ....the last word in the field of Climate science belongs to Lord Mockton and of course all you all who "need to school" everyone else....

 

[flacaltenn]

You are not really suited to impeaching sources if you don't understand the arguments..

Only you and the scientist paid for by the fossil fuel Industry are honest and real scientist ...the rest are sell out ...I know your spiel

TyroneW -- Clearly feel sorry that you were so punked by this idiot Climate Denier with a blog beating up on Dr Brown.

NOTHING he quoted from this man was wrong. In case you DOUBT you made an error here, I suggest you read some of the incredibly ridiculous shit this guy tries to pass off to refute Climate Change on said blog..

About Climate of Sophistry Climate of Sophistry

Next time --- you could ask someone to explain it -- before you hurl it as a weapon... This "science thingy" is not as easy as calling me a fuel shill is it??

I understand that only you and a handful of others have the knowledge the integrity that helps you all stand tall against the preponderance of Scientist and Meteorological agencies that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that you all are tops ....the last word in the field of Climate science belongs to Lord Mockton and of course all you all who "need to school" everyone else....

No -- what I'm saying is that YOU flat-out attempted to impeach a scientist you never heard of before with a DENIER blog article that mentions him.. That leads to YOUR credibility -- not mine.. Are you confused about that???

 

[ScienceRocks]

Question: Do you believe the arctic has warmed faster and smoothing the area with the data we do have is more accurate or less?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

No -- what I'm saying is that YOU flat-out attempted to impeach a scientist you never heard of before with a DENIER blog article that mentions him.. That leads to YOUR credibility -- not mine.. Are you confused about that???

You though are able to impeach the Integrity of the bulk of Climate scientist ....using Climate Truther Blogs ....