More Globaloney from NOAA

[SSDD]

Yet no climate scientist - not even Judith Curry or Anthony Watts - could be found to back up Goddard's accusations. So, once again, we have all the world's climate scientists - including several big name deniers - in an evil conspiracy.

Can you people not hear yourself?

Im afraid that you simply havent been following this story.

the skeptical side may still think Goddard is a bit of a crank but in the recent story.......

Sometimes, you can believe you are entirely right while simultaneously believing that you’ve done due diligence. That’s what confirmation bias is all about. In this case, a whole bunch of people, including me, got a severe case of it.

I’m talking about the claim made by Steve Goddard that 40% of the USHCN data is “fabricated”. which I and few other people thought was clearly wrong.

Dr. Judith Curry and I have been conversing a lot via email over the past two days, and she has written an illuminating essay that explores the issue raised by Goddard and the sociology going on. See her essay:

Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right? | Climate Etc.

Steve Goddard aka Tony Heller deserves the credit for the initial finding, Paul Homewood deserves the credit for taking the finding and establishing it in a more comprehensible
way that opened closed eyes, including mine, in this post entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Along with that is his latest followup, showing the problem isn’t limited to Texas, but also in Kansas. And there’s more about this below.

The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?


even funnier perhaps is NOAA's response-

Are the examples in Texas and Kansas prompting a deeper look at how the algorithms change the raw data?
No – our algorithm is working as designed. NCDC provides estimates for temperature values when:
1) data were originally missing, and
2) when a shift (error) is detected for a period that is too short to reliably correct. These estimates are used in applications that require a complete set of data values.

hahahahaha. yes, it is working as designed. they may regret saying that.


I like facts and figures so Paul Homewood's site is where I would send people to understand what the actual problem is. here is one of his latest articles on NOAA adjustments, mostly TOBS, in Alabama-

Temperature Adjustments In Alabama | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

the odd part is that the outlier, Brewton, the adjustments go the wrong way!

The metadata also tells us that Time of Observation was 6pm until 1983, after which it changed to 7am. This is the usual pattern, which is corrected by a warming adjustment, and not the cooling one we see here.

Quite simply, it is a mystery, which underlines the vagaries of the USHCN system and hardly inspires confidence.

I recommend people who are interested in links to the actual NOAA data read this and some of his other recent articles. he has lots of other temperature dataset stuff as well, especially GISS and NOAA

If fraud is the goal then yes the logarithm is working properly. .

 

[IanC]

The core of Goddard/Heller's charge was that NOAA had altered the data to make global warming look worse. ZERO evidence supports that charge. ZERO. That a clerical error was made for the readings in bum fuck Texas doesn't bother me in the least. That it's now your big deal tells me you're unwilling to admit that your original charges have fallen flat on their face.

You haven't read any of my links, have you?

What do you think of the Zombie stations?

What is your explanation for TOBS corrections being higher than the stated average in almost every example.? It is either incompetence or .....

The algorithms in place are not working properly but because they are happy with the results no one is bothering to check. I predict that there will be some problems found, independently from the skeptical criticisms of course, with a downward correction that will only last until the next upgrade.

 

[Crick]

I am quite certain that in a dataset as large as HCRN over 135 years, there will be all manner of mistakes found. But the adjustments that NOAA has made to these data were NOT the fraud of which you accuse them.

The world is getting warmer. You look like a fool trying to deny it.

 

[jc456]

I am quite certain that in a dataset as large as HCRN over 135 years, there will be all manner of mistakes found. But the adjustments that NOAA has made to these data were NOT the fraud of which you accuse them.

The world is getting warmer. You look like a fool trying to deny it.

Where has the world gotten warmer in the last seventeen years?

"Category Archives: Hiatus in Global Warming
← Older posts
RSS shows no global warming for 17 years 10 months"

eh?

 

[Crick]

The Pacific Ocean, where more than 70% of the sun's radiation has always ended up.

 

[IanC]

The Pacific Ocean, where more than 70% of the sun's radiation has always ended up.

You may want to proofread that.

When have I ever denied that the world has been warming,given an appropriate time frame? I wish you would stop lying about what I say. Actually you owe me an apology if you cannot find a quote, which you won't be able to find because I have never said anything like that.

 

[jc456]

The Pacific Ocean, where more than 70% of the sun's radiation has always ended up.

Oh, I thought you stated global, not specific areas. Huh.....

 

[Crick]

The Pacific Ocean, where more than 70% of the sun's radiation has always ended up.

Oh, I thought you stated global, not specific areas. Huh.....

You said "Where in the world".

And the world's total heat content is rising and has never stopped. It hasn't even slowed down.

 

[Crick]

The Pacific Ocean, where more than 70% of the sun's radiation has always ended up.

You may want to proofread that.

When have I ever denied that the world has been warming,given an appropriate time frame? I wish you would stop lying about what I say. Actually you owe me an apology if you cannot find a quote, which you won't be able to find because I have never said anything like that.

The comment you suggest I proof was not aimed at you.

Given an appropriate time frame? What's appropriate?

 

[flacaltenn]

I am quite certain that in a dataset as large as HCRN over 135 years, there will be all manner of mistakes found. But the adjustments that NOAA has made to these data were NOT the fraud of which you accuse them.

The world is getting warmer. You look like a fool trying to deny it.

In this thread Bullwinkle -- we are not complaining about the doctored temperature getting warmer by deception.. We are complaining about the 1930s STILL GETTING COOLER by deception.. So that HEADLINES can be made on a monthly basis to ASSERT that we are breaking records set in the 1930s when the Dust Bowl was just revving up..

You're not getting much of ANYTHING that has to do with graphs and simple ass data analysis. Analyzing thermometer data doesn't require a $bill lab and a team of PhDs.

 

[Kosh]

The core of Goddard/Heller's charge was that NOAA had altered the data to make global warming look worse. ZERO evidence supports that charge. ZERO. That a clerical error was made for the readings in bum fuck Texas doesn't bother me in the least. That it's now your big deal tells me you're unwilling to admit that your original charges have fallen flat on their face.

Well at least Goddard did something you AGW cultist can not do he released the datasets used and his source code so other could confirm his findings.

He did something the AGW cult will not do.

 

[Crick]

This figure shows changes in ocean heat content between 1955 and 2013. Ocean heat content is measured in joules, a unit of energy, and compared against the 1971–2000 average, which is set at zero for reference. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The lines were independently calculated using different methods by three agencies: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute (MRI/JMA). For reference, an increase of 5 units on this graph (5 x 1022 joules) is equal to approximately 100 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year.
Data sources: CSIRO, 2014; MRI/JMA, 2014; NOAA, 2014

 

[Crick]

The core of Goddard/Heller's charge was that NOAA had altered the data to make global warming look worse. ZERO evidence supports that charge. ZERO. That a clerical error was made for the readings in bum fuck Texas doesn't bother me in the least. That it's now your big deal tells me you're unwilling to admit that your original charges have fallen flat on their face.

Well at least Goddard did something you AGW cultist can not do he released the datasets used and his source code so other could confirm his findings.

He did something the AGW cult will not do.

You are a liar and a fool

 

[flacaltenn]

This figure shows changes in ocean heat content between 1955 and 2013. Ocean heat content is measured in joules, a unit of energy, and compared against the 1971–2000 average, which is set at zero for reference. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The lines were independently calculated using different methods by three agencies: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute (MRI/JMA). For reference, an increase of 5 units on this graph (5 x 1022 joules) is equal to approximately 100 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year.
Data sources: CSIRO, 2014; MRI/JMA, 2014; NOAA, 2014

Are you even in the CORRECT thread?? WTF are you babbling about OceanHeatContent?
You LOST????

 

[jc456]

This figure shows changes in ocean heat content between 1955 and 2013. Ocean heat content is measured in joules, a unit of energy, and compared against the 1971–2000 average, which is set at zero for reference. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The lines were independently calculated using different methods by three agencies: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and Japan Meteorological Agency’s Meteorological Research Institute (MRI/JMA). For reference, an increase of 5 units on this graph (5 x 1022 joules) is equal to approximately 100 times the total amount of energy used by all the people on Earth in a year.
Data sources: CSIRO, 2014; MRI/JMA, 2014; NOAA, 2014

Are you even in the CORRECT thread?? WTF are you babbling about OceanHeatContent?
You LOST????

OMG....hahahaahahahaahahahahaahahahahhaahaha...stop, please........

 

[SmedlyButler]

I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.

I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.

And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.

 

[jc456]

I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.

I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.

And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.

ah, but it's the dishonest humans that you can't account for. But thanks for playing and have a nice day!

 

[SmedlyButler]

I keep hearing talk about a "Conspiracy" to instill Global Warming into the world's Weltanschauung and consciousness. A conspiracy by who? And for what purpose? Cui Bono? A conspiracy of this scope would have to involve thousands of Atmospheric Scientists from all around the world. Phony computer programs would have to be written and installed on dozens of mainframes from NOAA to European weather agencies to Universities around the Globe. The costs of such a conspiracy would be massive. The number of scientists from every discipline required for it to be successful would be enormous. This is where Conspiracy Theories always break down for me. You have more than one person holding a "secret" and in a very short time it's not a secret any more.

I haven't researched Global Warming to any extent. I do read a lot about science though and put a lot of faith in it's truthfullness. To my knowledge no Scientist has ever held the Holy Grail of science, the Nobel Prize, by fudging his results. Testable, provable theories are at the heart of Science. Experimental result that are flawed are usually identified pretty quickly by peer review. Remember OPERA's faster than light Neutrinos?
Being an interested bystander, the overwhelming evidence that a great majority of the world's scientists agree with Global Warming to one degree or another, convinces me to accept their version.

And if they're right the environment may be saved. If they're wrong the environment may benefit from less pollution anyway.

ah, but it's the dishonest humans that you can't account for. But thanks for playing and have a nice day!

"How dumb is jc456?".....Pity I didn't ask that one.

 

[bripat9643]

Even the right-leaning Politifact is giving this denier nonsense a pants-on-fire rating. That's got to sting the poor deniers, seeing more and more of their bestest pals abandon them.

Fox's Doocy: NASA fudged data to make the case for global warming | PunditFact

Politifact is "right leaning?"

You are beyond delusional.

 

[Kosh]

The core of Goddard/Heller's charge was that NOAA had altered the data to make global warming look worse. ZERO evidence supports that charge. ZERO. That a clerical error was made for the readings in bum fuck Texas doesn't bother me in the least. That it's now your big deal tells me you're unwilling to admit that your original charges have fallen flat on their face.

Well at least Goddard did something you AGW cultist can not do he released the datasets used and his source code so other could confirm his findings.

He did something the AGW cult will not do.

You are a liar and a fool

Wrong again, but the liar here is you! You are a proven liar and have continued to show that you do not understand science much less anything else.