Mind-Blowing Temperature Fraud At NOAA

[jc456]

Especially hundreds of years later!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Historical temperature data is empirical evidence. If you'd like to convince me to reject a lie, you first need to show me some evidence that it's a lie. You and yours have UTTERLY FAILED to do so as of yet.

The HCN has been so badly bastardized that NO REPUTABLE SCIENTIST WILL USE THE ADJUSTED DATA. And that has come from people I know and work around who are both skeptic and alarmists alike. When your own supporters can see the fraud, that is like someone yelling in your ear at 1 foot from you...

 

[Crick]

People you work around? You don't work anymore and when you did, it was as a policeman. So, real policemen you know won't use the HCN. Shocking!

 

[Billy_Bob]

People you work around? You don't work anymore and when you did, it was as a policeman. So, real policemen you know won't use the HCN. Shocking!

NIce Adhom... Again Abraham has no facts, no clue, and just a whole lot of bull shit. I'm still waiting for you to justify your EM statements with facts.

 

[Ernie S.]

Historical temperature data is empirical evidence. If you'd like to convince me to reject a lie, you first need to show me some evidence that it's a lie. You and yours have UTTERLY FAILED to do so as of yet.

So crickster, how can it be empirical evidence if it's adjusted?

Because the Emperor adjusted it. Warmist gods have super powers.

 

[Crick]

I had no problem finding scholarly work making use of the HCN (see below). If your opinion is based solely on your personal experience - your observations of friends and coworkers - it's not worth squat. If you have some reputable sources stating the opinion you've expressed, it might be worth looking at. But I've got a feeling you do not. Prove me wrong if you can.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ect.com/science/article/pii/S000632070800387X

Scholarly networks on resilience vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change

Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia

Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data

Contribution of Increasing CO2 and Climate to Carbon Storage by Ecosystems in the United States

Complexity and Climate

Biodiversity management in the face of climate change A review of 22 years of recommendations

Scale and Geographic Inquiry Nature Society and Method - Google Books

Climate Change Human Impacts and the Resilience of Coral Reefs

 

[Crick]

People you work around? You don't work anymore and when you did, it was as a policeman. So, real policemen you know won't use the HCN. Shocking!

NIce Adhom... Again Abraham has no facts, no clue, and just a whole lot of bull shit. I'm still waiting for you to justify your EM statements with facts.

What EM statements? Quote me.

 

[Billy_Bob]

People you work around? You don't work anymore and when you did, it was as a policeman. So, real policemen you know won't use the HCN. Shocking!

NIce Adhom... Again Abraham has no facts, no clue, and just a whole lot of bull shit. I'm still waiting for you to justify your EM statements with facts.

What EM statements? Quote me.

This one:

Hey, it's just a wild and crazy guess, but... IN THE OCEANS?

Where was this imaginary "excess heat" BEFORE it was eaten by the oceans -- and how did it get 700m down?

Matthew's pegged it. Energy left the sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation (ie, photons). It entered the Earth's atmosphere where roughly 70% of it was absorbed directly by the oceans. The rest was absorbed by plants and trees and rocks and dirt and the tops of people's heads. A goodly portion of that energy gets reradiated at longer wavelengths by all these objects (including the oceans). Almost every bit of that gets reabsorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere, where it's rereradiated. Some of that comes back down and once more strike the ocean, the land, the tops of people's heads and so forth. Some goes up. Eventually, a significant amount is reradiated by GHGs in the upper stratosphere and escapes into space, never to strike the top of my head again.

And, as I've told you three or four times now in just the last couple of days, water BELOW the surface and shallow depths that can receive EM (light) directly is warmed by the MOVEMENT of water. Warmed surface water gets pulled down and is replaced by colder water from below. Now that water gets warmed before it too gets pulled down. Do you get the picture Frank?

Frank, when are you going to pay enough attention to what people tell you that you'll stop asking questions that've just been answered? It's simply not acceptable that we should have to explain the same thing to you over and over and over again.

EM and photons are very different forms of energy.

 

[Crick]

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 11972792, member: 50952"
EM and photons are very different forms of energy.[/QUOTE]

So you're both stupid and you haven't got jack shit. I never said anything about increasing EM (or photons).

Photons are the carrier particle for all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Look it up whizbrain.

 

[jc456]

[QUOTE="Billy_Bob, post: 11972792, member: 50952"
EM and photons are very different forms of energy.

So you're both stupid and you haven't got jack shit. I never said anything about increasing EM (or photons).

Photons are the carrier particle for all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Look it up whizbrain.[/QUOTE]
I see you didn't answer the question I asked. How can adjusted temperature data sets be empirical?

 

[depotoo]

The other day I was reading something on NOOA's site regarding past temperatures somewhere and they actually stated that if several stations nearby show different readings they could take the higher, as well as there could be as much as 2 degrees variance one way or the other. 2 degrees mind you.

Using more fudged data?

You don't get it. They have been caught SO many times, they have lost all credibility. It's over.