Evidence of warmer FUDGING

[mamooth]

You deniers can keep screaming "LIES! ALL LIES!" over and over, being it's all you're capable of, but the simple fact is still that the corrections to the temperature record have made the rate of warming look _smaller_. That point is not debatable by any honest person, and that point completely annihilates the denier cult conspiracy theory.

Ian often tries to deflect by babbling about buckets, but that's a particularly inept red herring, being it doesn't address the point at all. Why would scientists go to massive effort to tamper with single stations, and then make all of those adjustments irrelevant by adjusting the ocean data much more massively in the other direction? The fundamental denier conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.

Deniers, your primary conspiracy theory is inane and reality-defying. You ought to drop it, being that it makes those who spout it look logic-deficient and dishonest. The instant anyone starts yammering that temperature records are fudged, everyone knows with 100% certainty that the person is merely mouthing cult-approved conspiracy nonsense.

 

[IanC]

Up until the turn of the new millennium it was 'consensus science ' that SE USA was cooling.

SE USA? It's still cooling. So what? Other regions are consistently warming faster than the rest of the world.

Then adjustments and especially homogenization kicked in and replaced cooling with warming.

So you've joined the conspiracy theorists Ian? Disappointing.

I have looked at a lot of stations in BEST and have not found any that still show cooling. Even though Muller admitted that 1/3 of all long term stations had cooling trends when he initiated BEST. Homogenization to meet 'expectations' has corrupted the temperature records.

Bullshit

I said the SE USA was cooling. Crick agreed. I said adjustments and homogenization turned that cooling into warming. Crick called me a conspiracy theorist. I asked Crick to prove me wrong by posting up a station in BEST that has a cooling trend. Crick ignored my request but put up a slew of links. here is a graph from on of those links. National Geographic

I zero'ed in on the cold blob in southern Alabama. I looked at a map and picked a name. Andalusia.

I then went to Berkeley Earth station data and looked at the results. what do you think they showed?

Crick, what do YOU think they showed? Please be honest with yourself and give this some thought before you check for yourself or I put up the results. what do you think the raw data looked like? what direction do you think the adjustments went in. what do you think was the total change in trend?

I'll post the results tomorrow or as soon as Crick responds. But I doubt Crick will respond, and the results are easy enough to check for yourself.


if anyone else wants to make a guess about the trends pre and post adjustments, or the total change in trend, I would be pleased to hear from you.

 

[Crick]

Without a link the results are not easy to check. Post away. Why don't you post a map of the BEST data that would correspond to the region and time span you just posted. I'd think that would be the comparison that would show whether or not your claims were true.

 

[IanC]

Without a link the results are not easy to check. Post away. Why don't you post a map of the BEST data that would correspond to the region and time span you just posted. I'd think that would be the comparison that would show whether or not your claims were true.

I really wish you had expressed your opinion on what happens to the data as it goes through the BEST meat grinder and comes out as palatable sausage.

oh well, can't be helped. you have shown your dishonesty in the past and I am sure you will show it again in the future.

remember, you called me a wacko conspiracy theorist for claiming that homogenization etc has massively changed the temperature records and makes up much of the actual stated warming.

 

[IanC]

raw(ish) data. shows significant cooling. this is to be expected because it comes from the dark blue blob in NatGeo's map.

last chance to guess what the final trend will be....

 

[IanC]

now the meat grinding begins. station moves can be almost anything. sometimes it is an actual change in location, other times it can be just a correction to co-ordinates. empirical breaks are when the readings don't match the expectations. seven of them in seventy years. I think every one can see what is going to happen when those segmented red lines are brought together. cooling of the past and warming of the recent.

 

[IanC]

the final product! Andalusia now matches 'expectations' !!!!

last, last chance to guess what the change in trend is from 'raw' to 'corrected'.

 

[IanC]

Mean Rate of Change ( °C / Century )
Raw monthly anomalies -2.05
After quality control -2.05
After breakpoint alignment 0.81
Regional expectation during same months 0.84 ± 0.12
National average during same months 1.13 ± 0.09
Global land average during same months 1.34 ± 0.05



the trend went from -2.05C/century to +.81C/century. a total change of 2.86C/century! towards warming of course.

friggin' amazing, innit?

 

[Crick]

And your evidence that the correction was unwarranted?

 

[IanC]

And your evidence that the correction was unwarranted?

if it was someone else besides you that asked I would go through the whole circular reasoning thing that BEST uses to modify temps. but I have already shown lots of things to you and all you ever do is say "I believe the experts and I refuse to even consider any criticisms".

it should give other laymen readers pause when they see how BEST has changed the trend of this station almost three degrees Celsius per century. changing a cooling trend into a warming trend. a cooling trend that other agencies profess to be real.

 

[Crick]

NOAA's map. You can make out a lack of warming in the US SE. Given a choice between BEST and NOAA or Hadley, I'd choose the latter. BEST has only been doing this a short while. They were your folks - the skeptics. I don't know what to make of it. What do you think? That because of BEST's decision to adjust those data, can we assume that NOAA/GISS and Hadley are all lying - that there is no warming going on? What conclusion have you drawn from this Ian?

 

[Crick]

Your abject fear of models would be laughable were it not so-o-o-o-o fucking pathetic.

On the contrary...your abject mewling acceptance of obviously failed models is pathetic...actually, you are pathetic and your abject mewling acceptance of such crap is just one of the things that makes you pathetic.

The models of mainstream science are infinitely better than any model that any denier has ever produced. Or can you correct me on that?

 

[IanC]

Your abject fear of models would be laughable were it not so-o-o-o-o fucking pathetic.

On the contrary...your abject mewling acceptance of obviously failed models is pathetic...actually, you are pathetic and your abject mewling acceptance of such crap is just one of the things that makes you pathetic.

hahahahahaha. thats pretty funny

 

[Crick]

It is? What's your opinion of SID's opinion of GCM's Ian?

 

[IanC]

It is? What's your opinion of SID's opinion of GCM's Ian?

my opinion is that SSDD's insult of you was extremely funny because it was so close to the truth.

 

[Crick]

Then g'night Ian.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing.........as per usual, Ian is schooling the asses of the religion.

"Notice the stress on empirical evidence. The only grounds for fears of dangerous man-made global warming are predictions made on the basis of computer climate models of how the world’s climate responds to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. But as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman famously put it, if our prediction “disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

Read more at 3 ways ‘climate change’ models are dead wrong


Also from the above link.............


The religion hates empirical evidence............but.............on the models.........

• On average, they predict twice the warming actually observed over the relevant period.

• Over 95 percent predict more warming, not less, than actually observed. If their errors were random, they would as frequently predict less as more. That they don’t implies that their errors are not random but driven by some kind of bias, whether intentional and dishonest or unintentional and arising simply from misunderstanding, widely shared among the modelers, of how the climate system works.

• None of them predicted the complete absence of statistically significant global warming stretching back 18 years and 9 months, to February of 1997.

Read more at 3 ways ‘climate change’ models are dead wrong




duh

 

[skookerasbil]

Who's not winning?

 

[skookerasbil]

duh.......with all the fudging, this comes as no surprise......... The Debates Are Over, and No One Asked About Climate Change

 

[skookerasbil]

Your abject fear of models would be laughable were it not so-o-o-o-o fucking pathetic.

On the contrary...your abject mewling acceptance of obviously failed models is pathetic...actually, you are pathetic and your abject mewling acceptance of such crap is just one of the things that makes you pathetic.

The models of mainstream science are infinitely better than any model that any denier has ever produced. Or can you correct me on that?

Mainstream science produced the graph you posted above ( see post #31 )..........lots of colors up there ( whites, yellow, light orange) that signify insignificant warming.

You pwned yourself s0n!!