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

[Billy_Bob]

Consensus? Consensus of who, and how many of the actual number of the total? Total of the minute number of those they poll is not a total concensus. It is a manipulated consensus, just as the data is manipulated. I know you know this, therefore you must be one of the ones that benefits from the manipulations.

That's the same anti-science thinking that kept the Flat Earth Society in business for so long

The problem is Scientific American and Scientist disagree with you...you can disagree with me all you want the problem is you all disagree with Science...If I am you all I would write a paper destroying Scientific consensus OK go ahead do it ..LOL
Keep posting your "Lord Mockton" and your Anthony Watt LOL


About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.
By Ashutosh Jogalekar|January 10, 2014
|
103


The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

I understand your delusion is that only Heartland Institute related folks are trustworthy and above reproach..Scientist are all sell outs and fraudulent ...sure sure ...

Not even a single fact... just adhominems and conjecture... Given the empirical evidence one could assert, with fairly high confidence, that Depotoo is correct in his assumption...

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

So... it's the global conspiracy?

It's mostly the AGWCult based in the USA, the rest of the world merely laughs at us. Actually, they're laughing at you

And that is why China and India are dong so much to combat it. All of europe has done far more then us!!! How can you say something that is so against what reality says?

I don't believe in alarmist level global warming but damn if I am going to stand here and allow a lie to stand.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

The Topic is Duke physicists suggest corrections to the temperature records are causing an "improbable" divergence between them. And between the "land records" and the satellite records.

Moderation job is to keep Zone2 threads on topic and not allow them to be hijacked and turned into the same discussion under 20 different titles. Either discuss the TOPIC or get out. We don't KILL threads because some posters attempt to hijack them..

If there's no more discussion OF THE TOPIC -- I will close it.
If there IS ---- I will clean it so it reasonably RELATES to the topic.

You choose...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Consensus? Consensus of who, and how many of the actual number of the total? Total of the minute number of those they poll is not a total concensus. It is a manipulated consensus, just as the data is manipulated. I know you know this, therefore you must be one of the ones that benefits from the manipulations.

That's the same anti-science thinking that kept the Flat Earth Society in business for so long

The problem is Scientific American and Scientist disagree with you...you can disagree with me all you want the problem is you all disagree with Science...If I am you all I would write a paper destroying Scientific consensus OK go ahead do it ..LOL
Keep posting your "Lord Mockton" and your Anthony Watt LOL


About that consensus on global warming: 9136 agree, one disagrees.
By Ashutosh Jogalekar|January 10, 2014
|
103


The consensus about global warming among scientists (Image: James Powell)

I just want to highlight this illuminating infographic by James Powell in which, based on more than 2000 peer-reviewed publications, he counts the number of authors from November, 2012 to December, 2013 who explicitly deny global warming (that is, who propose a fundamentally different reason for temperature rise than anthropogenic CO2). The number is exactly one. In addition Powell also has helpful links to the abstracts and main text bodies of the relevant papers.

I understand your delusion is that only Heartland Institute related folks are trustworthy and above reproach..Scientist are all sell outs and fraudulent ...sure sure ...

Not even a single fact... just adhominems and conjecture... Given the empirical evidence one could assert, with fairly high confidence, that Depotoo is correct in his assumption...

Sure enough boss you and "Depotoo" have it all over the UN , NOAA , NASA, and all the Meteorological agencies ...you clearly have the truth that Science refuses to recognize so keep on keeping on until you force them to admit you are Better scientist....

 

[mamooth]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

Could you tell us where your mystery graph comes from, exactly what it's supposed to be portraying, and point specifically what data was used to make it?

No, I don't seriously expect you to answer. You'll just scream that everyone must accept your claims, even though even you have no idea what the graph is supposed to be portraying.

 

[flacaltenn]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

So... it's the global conspiracy?

It's mostly the AGWCult based in the USA, the rest of the world merely laughs at us. Actually, they're laughing at you

And that is why China and India are dong so much to combat it. All of europe has done far more then us!!! How can you say something that is so against what reality says?

I don't believe in alarmist level global warming but damn if I am going to stand here and allow a lie to stand.

Matty, China is doing NOTHING! Obama got them to agree to review the emissions in 30 years.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it were simply one or two causing this it might be unintentional, but i dont think so..

So... it's the global conspiracy?

It's mostly the AGWCult based in the USA, the rest of the world merely laughs at us. Actually, they're laughing at you

And that is why China and India are dong so much to combat it. All of europe has done far more then us!!! How can you say something that is so against what reality says?

I don't believe in alarmist level global warming but damn if I am going to stand here and allow a lie to stand.

Matty, China is doing NOTHING! Obama got them to agree to review the emissions in 30 years.

China has built more wind and solar then we have. It's pretty hard to call that nothing.

Lastly, temperature measurements also have a error bar and the adjustments are within that error...It has always been expected that the global temperature was slightly lower than reality.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The city I am had the hottest July in recorded history. I am 200 miles south of seattle. SO I am thinking it is possible that they always had a hot july.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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....

Brown calls out NASA....

You cite someone who does not agree with Brown.

Can you repudiate Brown or can't you ?

It's really that simple.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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 ....

Where did he do that ?

He simply pointed out that your quoted blog is without merit.

Your attempt to make it bigger is an attempt at deflection.

 

[Crick]

Could you tell us where your mystery graph comes from, exactly what it's supposed to be portraying, and point specifically what data was used to make it?

It is from: https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif?w=720

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could you tell us where your mystery graph comes from, exactly what it's supposed to be portraying, and point specifically what data was used to make it?

It is from: https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/screenhunter_3233-oct-01-22-59.gif?w=720

Actually, it is from the OP link. had you all actually read it you would have known.

Problematic Adjustments And Divergences Now Includes June Data Watts Up With That

 

[Crick]

The Steve Goddard address I posted came from the image on your post #44.

 

[flacaltenn]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

That graph is a distraction from the useful comments made by Dr. Brown. It was tossed out there by someone at WUWT just for purposes of speculation.. It represents a 0.6degF range of correction that occured over time. But I have no idea how an "adjustment temp" relates to any CO2 value. How do even plot adjustments vs CO2 ???

Here's what i mean.. THe annual US June 1939 temperature has been mucked with SEVERAL times. That means that MULTIPLE adjustments have been for a date that has the SAME CO2 reading.. Why aren't those points SHOWING that?

I conclude that it was tossed in without adequate explanation of what it IS... You can back and see if it's EXPLAINED -- but still is not relevant to the statements from Dr.Brown.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

That graph is a distraction from the useful comments made by Dr. Brown. It was tossed out there by someone at WUWT just for purposes of speculation.. It represents a 0.6degF range of correction that occured over time. But I have no idea how an "adjustment temp" relates to any CO2 value. How do even plot adjustments vs CO2 ???

Here's what i mean.. THe annual US June 1939 temperature has been mucked with SEVERAL times. That means that MULTIPLE adjustments have been for a date that has the SAME CO2 reading.. Why aren't those points SHOWING that?

I conclude that it was tossed in without adequate explanation of what it IS... You can back and see if it's EXPLAINED -- but still is not relevant to the statements from Dr.Brown.

I will concede that the graph was most likely added, However Dr Brown himself notes that the adjustments and the alignment to CO2 are not plausible. (this is in his following comments within the thread discussion)

The adjustments, some areas affected multiple times are not reflective of any reasonable reasoning. The points lowered do not make sense as the level of CO2 never changed inside that time frame. My question is was there warming that could not be explained by the level of CO2 and it would have raised troublesome questions regarding the theroy?

Every thing they have done puts the warming in line with their 'theroy'. There is no out side of the lines problems to explain once the adjustments are done. This just reaffirms his confirmation bias line of thought. in all experiments there are out side of the lines problems. the lack of them shows just how biased the outcome is. Its not PROBABLE given a chaotic set of systems.

 

[Crick]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

That graph is a distraction from the useful comments made by Dr. Brown. It was tossed out there by someone at WUWT just for purposes of speculation.. It represents a 0.6degF range of correction that occured over time. But I have no idea how an "adjustment temp" relates to any CO2 value. How do even plot adjustments vs CO2 ???

Here's what i mean.. THe annual US June 1939 temperature has been mucked with SEVERAL times. That means that MULTIPLE adjustments have been for a date that has the SAME CO2 reading.. Why aren't those points SHOWING that?

I conclude that it was tossed in without adequate explanation of what it IS... You can back and see if it's EXPLAINED -- but still is not relevant to the statements from Dr.Brown.

I will concede that the graph was most likely added, However Dr Brown himself notes that the adjustments and the alignment to CO2 are not plausible. (this is in his following comments within the thread discussion)

The adjustments, some areas affected multiple times are not reflective of any reasonable reasoning. The points lowered do not make sense as the level of CO2 never changed inside that time frame. My question is was there warming that could not be explained by the level of CO2 and it would have raised troublesome questions regarding the theroy?

Every thing they have done puts the warming in line with their 'theroy'. There is no out side of the lines problems to explain once the adjustments are done. This just reaffirms his confirmation bias line of thought. in all experiments there are out side of the lines problems. the lack of them shows just how biased the outcome is. Its not PROBABLE given a chaotic set of systems.

I hope before you shuffle off this mortal coil, it occurs to you that what you ASSUME to be evidence of conspiracy and falsehood is actually simply evidence that the dominant theory is correct.

 

[flacaltenn]

Could someone explain to me how all the adjustments follow CO2's and temperatures linear path? this is not empirically possible or probable as a log function is not linear...

The actual CO2 HISTORY chart is quite linear actually. The non-linear effect on temp doesn't enter into this. And there should be no correction of the surface data dependent on CO2.

That's either a coincidence or there is some reanalysis being done on the older data. Because look closely.. The CO2 concentrations go down to about 300ppm. That was in the 1900s.. So MAYBE they are filling gaps and places with "modeled" data. Who knows? No paper, no description, --- just a lot of hot air about how this all takes "professional judgement"..

And this corrections data for USHCN doesn't look like the others I've seen.

But it should not be. That is the point. when CO2 decreased the thermal imbalance should have cooled the earth but it magically warmed it after adjustment. It simply doesn't follow any form of logic that I can see.

That graph shows the amount of adjustment done monthly by those holding the official records. Oddly those adjustments matched perfectly the CO2 rise. Given the linear vs LOG problem, something needs some serious explanation. Using 280ppm as the base, we should have seen +0.06 deg C rise for each 22ppm rise in CO2 until the next doubling is complete. This doesn't add up.

That graph is a distraction from the useful comments made by Dr. Brown. It was tossed out there by someone at WUWT just for purposes of speculation.. It represents a 0.6degF range of correction that occured over time. But I have no idea how an "adjustment temp" relates to any CO2 value. How do even plot adjustments vs CO2 ???

Here's what i mean.. THe annual US June 1939 temperature has been mucked with SEVERAL times. That means that MULTIPLE adjustments have been for a date that has the SAME CO2 reading.. Why aren't those points SHOWING that?

I conclude that it was tossed in without adequate explanation of what it IS... You can back and see if it's EXPLAINED -- but still is not relevant to the statements from Dr.Brown.

I will concede that the graph was most likely added, However Dr Brown himself notes that the adjustments and the alignment to CO2 are not plausible. (this is in his following comments within the thread discussion)

The adjustments, some areas affected multiple times are not reflective of any reasonable reasoning. The points lowered do not make sense as the level of CO2 never changed inside that time frame. My question is was there warming that could not be explained by the level of CO2 and it would have raised troublesome questions regarding the theroy?

Every thing they have done puts the warming in line with their 'theroy'. There is no out side of the lines problems to explain once the adjustments are done. This just reaffirms his confirmation bias line of thought. in all experiments there are out side of the lines problems. the lack of them shows just how biased the outcome is. Its not PROBABLE given a chaotic set of systems.

EXACTLY !!! That's why I gave the example of 6 or 8 "adjustments" to the SAME historical DATE. A SUITE of values ought to show up at each of those CO2 scatterpoints. They don't appear to. So I have no idea what the person was trying to show..